John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” is a seminal work in political philosophy that aims to provide a framework for achieving justice in society. In essence, Rawls seeks the development of principles on the distribution of fundamental rights and goods in an impartial way. However, there are some valid criticisms of Rawls’ theory, such as its failure to meet the needs of the poor and marginalised groups, which makes unjust outcomes possible. This critique can be seen clearly in the work of Martha Nussbaum. Her capabilities approach criticizes Rawls’ theory on the grounds that it does not sufficiently take account of the centrality and worth of individuals’ capabilities and level of satisfaction. This essay will examine Nussbaum’s critique of Rawls and determine if his theory can overcome this challenge.
The key objective of Rawls in his book “A Theory of Justice” is to provide an understanding of justice that may help to form a community. He introduces the concept of the original position from which rational individuals, behind a veil of ignorance, choose the principles of justice while being ignorant about their personal characteristics and social positions. Rawls argues that this approach will lead to the selection of two fundamental principles: The first principle is the principle of equal fundamental liberties, and the second one is the difference principle. The first principle entails equality of essential rights, whereas the second stipulates that there can be inequality in wealth and income if the least advantaged benefit from such inequality.
Secondly, Rawls attempts to ground his theory of justice in fairness and impartiality. This is to establish the basis of a fair society that will help in providing a framework for a just social contract which strives to benefit all individuals, especially those people who have been least favoured. According to Rawls, people behind the veil of ignorance would choose principles which ensure fundamental rights and liberties and that the inequalities be arranged to benefit the least advantaged. He based his hypothesis on a principle which advocated for equitable allocation of resources and equal chances in life. He minimized the influence of accident of birth factors like socio-economic background, race or even God-given talents.
One of the major criticisms levied against Rawl’s theory is whether it would adequately cater to the welfare needs of the marginalized and whether such an approach could result in injustice. Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach, as discussed in her work “Martha. Words and Human Development”, is a robust alternate framework that challenges Rawls’ concept of justice.
The capability approach by Nussbaum is a profound reconstruction of the concept of justice, highlighting the capability of individuals to lead lives that they value. Nussbaum’s approach centres on a wide array of essential human functions and capabilities crucial to understanding what constitutes true justice from the perspective of distributing primary goods and resources alone. Among these capabilities are life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination, emotions, practical reason, affiliation and control over one’s environment.
Nussbaum’s approach expands the conceptualization of a just society towards the promotion of individual well-being and the development of human capabilities. Justice entails more than just equal distribution of resources but rather a condition in which people can fully cultivate and develop their capacities.
Nussbaum’s criticism of Rawls’ theory is very effective because it explains the drawbacks of the purely resource-oriented conception of justice. It questions the assumption that there is perfect justice and equality of people based on the division of benefits and opportunities. Unlike the capabilities approach by Nussbaum, one must help people have meaningful lives of possibilities, which is a way to develop their lives.
Nussbaum argues that Rawls’ focus on essential goods and the distribution of resources must be more inclusive in capturing multidimensional human well-being. She argues that Rawls’ theory may not guarantee that people are endowed with the abilities of a good life. Hence, Nussbaum’s critique undermines the value of Rawls’ goal, which is to create principles of justice that ensure an equitable distribution of fundamental rights and entitlements. This implies that whereas primary goods are essential for individual development and capabilities, they do not necessarily guarantee people’s full potential in exercising their capabilities.
Nussbaum’s critique also asks whether the procedural devices and constitutional principles put forward by Rawls help effectively achieve justice. She argues that the original position and its veil of ignorance may need to consider the different individual conditions and needs sufficiently. However, the capability approach provides a more open and robust system of analysis that can accommodate those differences more fruitfully towards true justice. Therefore, Nussbaum’s criticism shows that Rawls’ theory might need help to beat the challenge she brings.
To ascertain if Rawls’ theory could answer Nussbaum’s challenge, we must analyze their pros and cons. Rawls’ theory offers a straightforward approach to handling the issues concerning distributive justice. This principle is based on careful consideration or deliberation in the original position to guarantee equal rights and justice. Also, the “difference principle” Rawls that favours the least advantaged is consistent with the objective of justice toward the socially vulnerable groups.
Nevertheless, it is essential to include Nussbaum’s capabilities approach in the debate over justice. It acknowledges the significance of human capacities and prosperity, which surpass the dispensation of resources. This approach focuses on the capacity of people to live a desired life, particularly for the underprivileged in society. This approach is more profound in helping understand what constitutes human flourishing and a just society.
In the end, Rawls’ theory and the capabilities approach may complement each other. Focusing on the different principles and primary goods based on which Rawls concludes gives us food for thinking about fairness in distributing resources and life chances. On the other hand, the capabilities approach reminds us that we should think about justice in terms of both resources and what people can do.
Conclusion
The most compelling critique of Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” comes from Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach, which challenges the narrow focus on resource distribution and primary goodsThis approach questions the concentration on resources and primary goods alone without consideration of the actual ability the individual has. Nussbaum’s approach stresses the role of the individual’s capabilities and well-being in justice. Though Rawl’s theory is a solid basis for solving questions of distributive justice and the least advantaged, the capabilities approach offers a more expansive and comprehensive view of human flourishment and well-being. It is not about one theory ultimately defeating the other, but in seeing the strengths of both and how they can help lead to social justice in society.
References
- Martha Nussbaum, “Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach”
- John Rawls, “A Theory of Justice” – Rawls’ seminal work, which lays out his theory of justice.
write