Stefan Kirchner is an Associate Professor of Human Rights at the University of Lapland in Finland and a contributing guest writer for CelebrityTypes. In this article, Kircher elaborates on how John Rawls, one of the most renowned philosophers of the 20th century, thought that we should treat others. As always with guest writers on the site, Kirchner‘s piece represents his own insights and not necessarily those of the site.
By Stefan Kirchner, Ph.D.
Questions of justice and fairness constitute an important part of philosophical thought and have done so for thousands of years. Among the key challenges is the question of how we are to treat others. If we assume that all of us are interested in living in a world whose doings are marked by justice and fairness, then we have to ask ourselves not merely what we can expect of others, but what our own obligations to others must be as well.
Over the centuries, different philosophers have approached the problem of how to treat others in various ways. Some thinkers, such as the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, have proposed a series of detailed axioms and rules by which they thought it possible to govern the ethical aspect of life.
However, not everyone agrees with the rule-based approach we find in Kant and his progeny. Some say that rule-based ethical systems will often be culturally and philosophically tied to the context in which they were first promulgated, even if they aim to be universally applicable – and indeed, many of the rules that aim to govern human action only make sense in some contexts and not in others.
It is in the search for an alternative to the rule-based approach that we encounter the ethical theory of John Rawls (1921-2002). As Rawls points out, a rule is not simply a rule and does not always carry the same ethical connotations. For example, if you say that whatever is offered for sale in the marketplace is offered voluntarily, that may be true in most cases. But in some cases, the goods that are offered for sale may be ill-gotten gains, or the object in question may have been produced with the aid of forced labor. So in those cases, the general rule that may normally hold up will not be valid. Therefore, as Rawls would have it, we should not hinge our ethical commitments on rules, and be loyal to rules, but rather hinge them on fellow-feeling; looking each other in the eye and treating each other as equals.
Rawls understood justice as synonymous with fairness. When these words are used according to their everyday meanings, justice is probably already synonymous with fairness to most. But in a more technical sense, “fairness” can be understood as a basic human instinct that longs for equality between individuals and which has its origins on a primitive and archaic level – the longing for equality is simply part of what it means to be human.
As opposed to fairness, justice is a higher-order and more abstract political concept. Indeed, there is not one, but several concepts of justice spread among the peoples of the world, whereas the desire for equality seems to be more alike all over the world.
If we conceived of justice according to the rule-based approach of Immanuel Kant, then every dispute (or almost every dispute) could be settled by reference to the moral rules that ought to govern mankind. But the way Rawls sees it, we do not have a faculty of reason that stands apart from our everyday doings in the world. As individuals, we have specific interests which are not always aligned with those of others: If the two of us are interested in the same romantic partner, each of us hopes that he will be the one to succeed and that the other party will fail. But whereas to Kant, each of us should afford the other party a fair chance at courting the beloved, as the dictates of reason would specify, Rawls recognizes that in many cases, we do not have such a separate faculty of reason that stands apart from our interests as physical human beings. Indeed, our specific interests may bend and distort our powers of reason so that what appears reasonable to us appears unreasonable to another, and so forth.
Hence an important aspect of Rawls’ thinking is the idea of reasonable disagreement. Unlike the ethical theories of other philosophers, such as Kant, Rawls accepts that it is not possible to live in a society characterized by complete harmony. Any mass society must allow for disagreements. Therefore, while we cannot act solely according to reason or some moral law, we can at least aim to be reasonable in our disagreements with each other. Agreeing to disagree allows for a pluralism of views and a pluralism of ideas and this pluralism, along with our tolerance of it, may in itself shape our thinking and views in ways that the individual viewpoints could not. In this way, the concept of reasonable disagreement allows for a shaping and acclimation of our political outlook and social mores that is more than the sum of its parts.
Reconciliation, Not Relativism
Rawls’ doctrine of reasonable disagreement does not mean, however, that there are no universal truths or that whatever people can agree to tolerate is therefore true. Indeed, the existence of some form of objective truth is implied by the fact that Rawls did not term his doctrine ‘acceptable’ or ‘tolerable’ disagreement, but reasonable disagreement. In the context employed by Rawls, ‘reasonable’ can be understood to mean that the disagreement is understandable for all parties concerned. For example, if the firm that provides you with a job is set to go out of business, it may be reasonable for you to wish that the shareholders would inject more capital into the firm so that it could continue to operate, while it may be equally reasonable for the shareholders to want to liquidate the firm and move on.
Hence the approach suggested by Rawls does not necessarily entail the “giving up” of one’s own values in order to extend tolerance to those of others. On the contrary, it enables individuals who may otherwise find themselves in wide disagreement with one another to peacefully coexist, even if they do not share the same ultimate values. To Rawls, each of us is free to pursue his own ultimate justifications for his values and beliefs, but in practical terms, the need for being reasonable in the midst of our disagreement with others is the very prerequisite that allows us that freedom in the first place. Thus, even in Rawls’ own words, his theory of how we are to treat each other is an ethical theory that “deliberately stays on the surface,” remaining polite and interpersonally uncommitted in its choice of ultimate values.[1] Hence the Rawlsian approach also manages to steer clear of the prospect of having to upset and oppose religiously or culturally motivated values altogether. As long as people can agree to support freedom, pluralism, and fairness in their socializing and conduct with others, they are free to cultivate their personal values however they see fit as the ultimate source of justification and meaning in their lives.
It is therefore from treating others as free and equal beings that a just and fair society can emerge. What this approach requires is respect for others, a commitment to being reasonable in order to determine what is fair, and a willingness to follow up on the demands of fairness and to see them through in individual situations. The totality of such individual actions will then contribute to the creation of a more just society for all. The creation of a just and fair society from which we can all benefit is in our own hands.
NOTES
[1] John Rawls: Collected Papers (Harvard University Press 1999) p. 395
***
Image of Rawls in the article commissioned for this publication from artist Georgios Magkakis.