The 1971 publication of John Rawls’ “A Thought of Justice” revolutionized contemporary political theory. John Rawls provided a reformulation of John Locke’s, Jean Jacque Rosseau’s, and Immanuel Kant’s social contract theory in the book, offering a foundation for the liberal state.

According to John Rawls, in an original stance, participants to a contract would accept two principles of justice to manage society’s basic structure. The following are the two principles:

1 Everyone has an equal right to the most comprehensive system of equal rights consistent with a similar system of liberty for everyone.

Inequalities in both social and economic terms must be addressed.

A) To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, in accordance with the principle of just saving.

The second concept, on which I will concentrate, can be divided into two categories: fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle.

The second principle of justice proposed by John Rawls is distributive justice.

The purpose of this paper is to critically assess John Rawls’ second principle of justice, focusing on the positive and bad aspects of Rawls’ second principle of justice.

The analytic critical technique will be used since it appears to be the most effective method for correctly analyzing and critically critiquing John Rawls’ second principle of justice.




The question of justice has long been a contentious topic in philosophy. The discussion is around what the term “justice” implies and how it might be achieved in a society. Justice was associated with “might is right” by Thrasymachus, an ancient Greek philosopher. “Justice is a concept that is balanced between law and morality,” says Christopher Stolleri. 1. Morality refers to the rightness or wrongness of a particular conduct. Laws are established rules that guide a community and can be used for the good or for the bad of its members. “The foundation of Justice is the intrinsic equality of all persons,” says Joseph Omoregbe. 2. In order for a society to be peaceful and harmonious, justice must be applied.


Socrates was a Greek philosopher who lived in the 4th century BC.

A just society, according to Karl Marx, is a classless society, which he referred to as communism. We arrive at a just society, according to John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, when society acts to give “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

The utilitarian view of justice can be abused, leading to “tyranny of the majority” (Nazi Germany’s mistreatment of Jews and the United States’ mistreatment of African Americans)3. John Rawls provided his own theory of justice by criticizing the utilitarian view of justice because it can be abused, leading to the “tyranny of the majority” (Nazi Germany’s mistreatment of Jews and the United States’ mistreatment of African Americans) This widespread cause of injustice is guarded against in Rawls’ approach.

Justice principles are those that sensible and free people concerned about furthering their own interests would accept as defining in an initial position of equality.

From the foregoing, John Rawls developed his own concept of a just society by presenting two principles that can guide a community toward that goal. He did so by proposing a theory in which the people in the original position wore a veil of ignorance, preventing them from being partial. One of John Rawls’ main goals was to lay forth a moral theory that was better suited to interpreting democratic values of freedom and equality than the utilitarian tradition at the time.

In light of this context, my research aims to critically evaluate John Rawls’ principles for achieving a just society. In order to accomplish this, I will think about


The second principle states that social and economic inequalities should be organized in such a way that they are (a) to the greatest benefit of all the least advantaged, consistent with the just saving principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions that are open to all under fair equality of opportunity.

Several issues arise, for example, can there ever truly be equal opportunities when nature itself is not equal? Is it acceptable to distribute goods equally when people do not contribute the same amount to society? How do people come into possession of goods?


By analyzing John Rawls’ second principle of justice, this study hopes to provide a deeper understanding of it. There will also be a critique of John Rawls’ second principle of justice, in order to determine its viability. We can ultimately analyze and pass judgment on whether John Rawls’ second principle of justice can truly direct a society toward being a just society by better understanding it and evaluating the many critiques


This research aids in a thorough comprehension of John Rawls’ second principle of justice, noting both its positive and bad aspects without dogmatically endorsing it. Rawls claims that his ideas of justice should be applied to evaluating the fairness of actual social institutions, such as the political government that governs people.

We can decide whether John Rawls’ second principle can help a society become more just. After thoroughly evaluating John Rawls’ second principle of justice in this assignment, we will be able to determine whether it is the answer to the problem of our current society or simply another theory to be dismissed.


This research will primarily focus on John Rawls’ second principle of justice, but first, I will examine the steps that lead to his acceptance of the concept, as well as provide a critique of John Rawls’ second principle of justice.

Despite the fact that my research will be extensive, the focus of my study will be solely on John Rawls’ second principle of justice.


I’ll use the analytical cum critical method in this assignment. Data will be gathered from textbooks, publications, journals, the internet, and any other source relevant to the project’s theme. This strategy will assist us in completely comprehending John Rawls’ second principle of justice and will raise some important questions.


Leave a Comment