We are constantly seeking “justice”, and tend to complain vociferously in case it is denied. But what is justice all about? Michael Sandel, in his book — “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?”, has described the various flavors of Justice as advocated by various philosophers. The subject seems to be very complex and sometimes counter-intuitive. The utilitarians believe that justice mandates that we act in the larger interest of the majority — in order to maximize the “overall happiness”, whereas, for the libertarians, justice is to uphold individual liberty at all cost (ability to act freely without any hindrances). But for Kant, the German philosopher of the 18th century it is neither. Kant believes that justice can be ensured only when we act autonomously (freely) without any encumbrances. Why? Since subdued actions driven by self-interest, cannot lead to a fair outcome as we all have diverse skills/status and these (skills/status) are not just unequal but also not our own doing, and an outcome of a “natural lottery system”. But, if that is so then how can we act autonomously since even our desires are an outcome of the physical context (beyond our control) like genes and nurture? Kant believes that it is possible for us to do so since we humans are rational beings, and we have the power to reason. Through a logical and practical reasoning, we can arrive at a fair law governing all our actions.
But how can we tell that the law that we have chosen for ourselves is fair? Kant believes that for a law to be fair it must be valid under all circumstances without any contradictions. For example, if we decide to lie to others, and if this maxim is gets emulated by others, then the notion of promise-keeping will fall apart, as no one will believe in each other. Similarly, other such laws can be derived from pure practical reasoning and these such laws will be fair and free from the encumbrance of self-interest. Now, this might appear to be too harsh and even hypothetical. But without this maxim, will we be able to convict a murderer, who might claim that his actions were just an outcome of his desire over which he has no control (assuming he is mentally sound)?
John Rawls extended Kant’s ideas further and applied these in politics and governance. As per Rawls, no contract is fair unless it is drafted under the “veil of ignorance”. Why? as self-interest tends to dominate once the “veil of ignorance” is lifted — making the nogotiations unfair and favoring the one will more knowledge and power. Hence, Rawls advocated that the principles of justice should emanate only when this equality is established, and that can happen only in an imaginary situation (when all are on equal footing).
Now, if we apply these principles in practical situations, for example, let’s say when a contract gets negotiated between two unequal commercial entities, we will ever encounter a fair situation? In my view, it is very unlikely. Then does that mean that we are at the liberty to disown all contracts at will? No, as that will dismantle the system of contracts — leading to total anarchy. The concepts stated by Kant and Rawl are useful in the sense that it makes us more conscious about the moral deserts that our actions deliver, and forces us to think whether we really deserve them, or they are mere entitlements just like the price we might win in a state-run lottery system. Acknowledgment of this fact can help drive humility and makes us more responsible towards our society and to those who were mere unlucky to have been left behind.
