John Rawls' 'A Theory of Justice'

[Note: In the history of modern political philosophy, John Rawls is one of the most influential and groundbreaking thinkers. His timeless book 'A Theory of Justice' (1971) revitalizes fundamental questions of social justice, individual freedom, and equality in a new framework. Rawls presents a coherent argument on how to build a just and fair society, overcoming the limitations of utilitarianism. Previously, 'Akhra' published summaries of the thoughts of influential political thinkers, including Rousseau. In that continuity, today we present a summary of the main ideas of John Rawls's 'A Theory of Justice.' This is a translation of selected parts from the book 'An Analysis of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice,' co-authored by Filippo Dionigi and Jerome Cleidosty. With the assistance of AI, this translation has been completed, and the entire text has been prepared through editing by the Akhra team.]

Who was John Rawls?

John Rawls, the author of A Theory of Justice (1971), was born in 1921 into an upper-middle-class Christian family in Baltimore, Maryland. His father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother was the president of the local League of Women Voters.

During his undergraduate studies at Princeton University, Rawls came into contact with the ideas of American philosopher Norman Malcolm. Malcolm was a student of the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein had observed that language plays a significant role in human thought. This idea later instilled in Rawls a deep academic drive to understand how society interprets the meaning of the word 'justice'.

At Princeton, Rawls's academic life was deeply immersed in a religious passion for political philosophy. He had even considered becoming a priest by studying theology. However, when Rawls was 20, America became involved in World War II. Two years later, Rawls joined the military service in the Pacific region. His experiences during this military life from 1943 to 1946 compelled him to abandon his religious faith. As a result, he began to search for an alternative path to envision a good and just society.

Choosing political philosophy as the best way to achieve this goal, Rawls entered the world of teaching and research. Before joining Harvard University as a professor in 1962, he worked at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Cornell University.

In the decades leading up to his death in 2002, John Rawls gained recognition as one of the most influential and widely cited political thinkers of his time. His first book, A Theory of Justice, was published in 1971. This celebrated book, which sparked much debate, criticism, and universal acclaim, brought him significant fame as a political philosopher.

Author's Background

In 1971, when A Theory of Justice was first published, American society was undergoing rapid changes; and as a result, violent conflicts arose among various social groups. Just a few years earlier, the civil rights movement had developed in the country. This movement successfully brought the suffering and plight of America's ethnic minorities to the forefront of national consciousness.

The country was then immersed in the Vietnam War on the international stage. In this conflict, the United States fought on behalf of South Vietnam against communist North Vietnam, which was the first war to be broadcast live on television. For the first time, the American public faced the violent reality of war. By the late 1960s, this war divided society. Many began to question the prevailing notions of justice in the United States, and the very core feeling of justice in society was shaken—something that is clearly reflected in the book "A Theory of Justice."

However, this book also contains an awareness of the power of collective human effort to achieve a common goal. The 1960s was a tumultuous time, but it was also a unique era of social success and idealism. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, turning it into law. For the first time, a promise was made for equal opportunities and benefits for all citizens of the country: people were given the chance to vote, conduct business, and attend school without being victims of racial discrimination. Four years later, in July 1969, the Apollo moon landing took place. What had been considered impossible just a decade earlier was being achieved by Americans.

The Theory of Justice is indeed a real reflection of its time. Rawls raises fundamental questions about the concepts of goodness and justice here, and he also acknowledges that it is possible to achieve them through mutual cooperation.

What did 'A Theory of Justice' say?

In the book A Theory of Justice, John Rawls's main objective was to create a new way for people to think about justice. He primarily aimed to present his ideas as an alternative to utilitarian philosophy. Utilitarianism holds that the morality of an action should be judged based on its outcomes; that is, the action that brings the greatest benefit to the most people is considered the 'best' action. When Rawls was writing A Theory of Justice, utilitarian thought was highly esteemed, but Rawls opposed it. His argument was that utilitarianism only considers the benefits of the majority and does not take into account the welfare or well-being of individuals. According to Rawls, this mentality opens the door to oppression and suffering in society.

To fill the gap left by utilitarianism, Rawls revives the old tradition of the 'social contract.' In the liberal political tradition, the emphasis is placed most on individual freedom, and the social contract is a fundamental basis of that tradition. The essence of it is that there exists an unwritten or implicit agreement between the state and each of its citizens. The agreement is this: the individual will give up a portion of their natural or inherent freedom (in simple terms, the freedom to do whatever they wish whenever they please); in return, the state will establish a society that provides protection for that individual.

In Rawls's view, the picture of an ideal society is a gathering of free and rational individuals who are sensitive to justice. This is a fundamental concept of his entire work. He emphasizes that these members of society—whom he defines as "an initiative for mutual cooperation to advance"—will collectively agree on certain principles that will form the foundation of a just society. Rawls defines justice in terms of 'fairness'; for him, justice should be based on certain conditions and rules that everyone considers equally fair. How justice will function as the 'basic structure' or foundation of society—that is, how fundamental values will be upheld among the main institutions—is his primary concern.

According to Rawls, a truly just society is one that all its citizens would consider to be just—regardless of any social class, religious belief, or moral (ethical) conviction present in that society. However, it is quite difficult for a person to imagine what a just society might actually look like, stepping outside their own position or perspective. Therefore, Rawls presents some special methods or thought experiments to help his readers reach this place of empathy. He provides additional concepts so that everyone can reflect on social justice and its true meaning. One of these is 'reflective equilibrium'—that is, the process of repeatedly questioning and reconsidering our understanding of justice until it reaches a balanced position.

Another new concept of Rawls is the 'Difference Principle.' He argues that even in a just society, inequalities in wealth and resources can be tolerated if those inequalities benefit the least advantaged members of society. For example, encouraging a qualified individual to pursue training as a surgeon or doctor may be beneficial for society, as their work will ultimately benefit the entire community. However, Rawls adds a condition that the paths to earning more money or the jobs should be open to everyone based on merit.

The real significance of Rawls' approach lies in the demand for religious and cultural neutrality: every member of society should believe that their society is completely just. Rawls' unique method considers people to be inherently equal in terms of dignity, but at the same time acknowledges that human capabilities are not equal. Some individuals may contribute more to the welfare of society than others. Therefore, even in a just society, there can be disparities or differences.

Context of the Book

In 1971, when John Rawls published 'A Theory of Justice', the academic world of political theory faced a significant challenge. At that time, international politics was dominated by the Cold War. This struggle had divided the capitalist and communist worlds. Various states around the globe were compelled to take sides in this ideological war. Both camps believed that they alone knew the correct principles for governing society. Each side invoked utilitarian philosophy in support of their respective ideologies. Both sides argued that their proposed system would bring the greatest benefit to the most people, even though it was entirely inevitable that some individuals would suffer losses or harm.

But Rawls wanted a political theory that would bring good outcomes for society without harming individuals. He made the point clear: 'Just as people decide what is good using their own reason and conscience... in the same way, a group of people must also decide at once what will be considered justice and what will be considered oppression or wrongdoing.'

To find a middle path out of the extremism of existing political ideologies, Rawls draws on the concept of the 'social contract.' This idea can be found in the writings of the English philosopher John Locke and the Swiss-born philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The social contract is an unwritten agreement or pact among people aimed at building a mutually beneficial society.

However, following the tradition of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, Rawls adds a moral dimension. His foundational premise was the rational desire of individuals to live a just and fair life in society. In his book "A Theory of Justice," he has created a system that any society can use to establish justice. According to Rawls, this system can be applied in any society at any time.

General Scope of Discussion

Rawls has repeatedly referenced Kant. Kant was an extremely influential thinker, particularly known for his work The Metaphysics of Morals (1797). In that book, Kant illustrated through hypothetical situations how rational individuals can create moral concepts that are acceptable to society as a whole.

Rawls accepts Kant's assertion that rational individuals are 'autonomous moral agents'—that is, they have full freedom to understand the distinction between good and evil in their own way. Rawls also employs a key method of Kant: he places readers in an imaginary situation and asks them, based on that theory, what the true meaning of a state being just, fair, and good is.

Rawls clearly states that this Theory of Justice attempts to present a new alternative to the utilitarian concept in political theory. In the preface of his book, he argues that the main reason utilitarianism became so popular was the prudence of its early thinkers. Rawls mentions that British philosophers David Hume, Adam Smith, and Jeremy Bentham were all leading social thinkers and economists. However, he believes that there was a lack of clarity in the moral theories they provided. In many cases, it is quite difficult to reconcile strict utilitarianism with practical morality.

For example: If a state adheres to Bentham's doctrine and falls into a crisis of food or money, it may decide to let the most vulnerable or unproductive people in society starve to death. This would save the state's resources, which they could then spend on those who actively contribute to society. However, Rawls argues that the general public would rebel against the idea of sacrificing the elderly and sick in this way. Most societies pay special attention and consideration to these vulnerable groups. Therefore, Rawls's main purpose in this Theory of Justice book was to establish an 'effective and orderly moral concept' to counter utilitarianism.

Academic Influences

John Rawls has openly acknowledged that certain individuals and philosophies have influenced his work. His goal was to provide an accurate definition of justice and to help people build a just society through it. Many thinkers throughout history have worked towards the same goal. In fact, Rawls himself wrote that his 'core ideas are traditional and well-known to all.'

The philosopher Locke of the seventeenth century discussed the concept of the social contract between individuals and the state. He argued that people enter into this contract on the condition that the state will provide protection for their 'life, liberty, and property.' Rousseau's ideas complement Locke's thoughts. Rousseau believed that people are born free, but society chains them. According to Rousseau, society does not allow individuals to govern themselves or maintain their own moral values.

Kant adds the final piece to this argument. He argues that people should not be seen merely as a means to achieve an end, but rather that they themselves are an ultimate goal—an idea he refers to as the 'categorical imperative.' According to Kant, through this path, individuals can use their reason to think about what kind of treatment they can expect from others. His main interest was in how to maintain the dignity of each person.

These philosophers had a profound influence on Rawls. However, alongside this, Rawls was part of a vibrant intellectual community or gathering at Oxford and Harvard. He mentioned several contemporaneous scholars who influenced his thinking. Among them are the Indian-born philosopher Amartya Sen, American philosopher Robert Nozick, and the prominent thinkers like Latvian-born political theorist Judith Shklar. Although Nozick criticized Rawls's ideas, Rawls acknowledged that this criticism was quite useful to him. On the other hand, both Amartya Sen and Judith Shklar have utilized many of Rawls's thoughts in their own work.

Main Subject Matter

In the book "A Theory of Justice," John Rawls defines justice in terms of 'fairness.' In his view, a just society is one that centers on equal citizenship and equal opportunities for all. To examine these ideas in detail, he employs a method called "reflective equilibrium." According to this approach, he first presents a specific political problem or debate, evaluates the prevailing opinions on the matter, analyzes their strengths and weaknesses, and then refines his own thoughts accordingly. As a result of this process, his own theory takes on a more balanced and robust foundational form. Rawls divides his entire work into three parts: the fundamental theory of justice, just society and its institutions, and the ultimate aim or desired outcome of a just society.

Rawls's main motivation for this work was his profound dissatisfaction with utilitarian political theory. He argues that, despite claiming to be based on principles of ethics, utilitarianism can create policies or principles that are fundamentally immoral. This is because it does not provide a way to prioritize the importance of different virtues, nor does it offer a method for determining which virtues should be emphasized in society. He also makes it clear that there is no mechanism within utilitarianism to reach a consensus on what is most beneficial for society.

On the other hand, due to the personal and subjective nature of intuitionism (a form of epistemology—meaning the process of seeking solutions to philosophical issues by measuring their good and bad through one's own insight), it is not at all appropriate to apply it to social policy. Rawls highlights these weaknesses of utilitarianism and presents his alternative thought: he argues that freedom must be as broad as possible, and it can only be limited when the exercise of one person's freedom obstructs the freedom of another.

Spread of Ideas

At the beginning of the book, Rawls highlights the development of utilitarian and deontological concepts in European intellectual history from the 'Age of Enlightenment' to the 'Age of the Industrial Revolution.'

He argues that in order to build a just society, people must first imagine what kind of society they would create without knowing their own status or position within it. He refers to this condition as the 'original position.' This requires a specific form of imagined ignorance, which he calls the 'veil of ignorance.' It is quite a challenging process; envisioning one's position at the very bottom of the social structure is not an easy task. Rawls seems to be instructing his readers to blindfold themselves, clear their minds, and determine their positions in a completely new imagined society.

According to Rawls, through this practice, two fundamental principles of a just society become self-evident: first, all individuals must be equal citizens in the eyes of the law; and second, social differences or inequalities are only acceptable when they bring greater benefits or desired outcomes for the entire society. However, the condition for this acceptability is that the paths to higher status or better-paying jobs must be equally open to everyone. This is often referred to as the 'Difference Principle.'

Rawls has compared the ideas and results of his approach with utilitarianism.

If the first part of his book is primarily a philosophical discussion, then the second part is entirely political. Here, Rawls defines the concept of freedom or liberty and discusses its limitations. His thoughts are very close to the philosophical ideas of John Locke. However, the novelty that Rawls brings here is that he has integrated this concept of freedom with Kant's moral philosophy. This has given his work a remarkable moral tone: for Rawls, equating justice with fairness and personal freedom is not only a reasonable task but also the right and ultimate duty. This part of the book discusses topics such as economics, the distribution of resources, and social responsibility. Rawls reviews issues like 'civil disobedience' and 'conscientious refusal'—the refusal to accept military duty or service due to moral conviction—which directly reflect the impact of events like the civil rights movement in America and the Vietnam War.

In the third part, Rawls presents a way of thinking about ethics based on logical and neutral assumptions instead of religious or spiritual concepts. However, critics may argue that his ethical arguments are not entirely neutral; rather, they reflect Rawls's own personal moral preferences. Rawls himself discusses various topics related to psychology and the desire to find meaning in human life in the book.

Other Content

One of the important components or secondary ideas of John Rawls' book "A Theory of Justice" is his hypothetical concept, which he calls the "Original Position." To reach a conclusion about the true nature of justice and its relationship with the state, he has utilized this imaginary exercise.

Rawls has employed several specific techniques to allow readers to step outside the boundaries of their own social status or position. As a result, regardless of their position in society, they can objectively understand what true justice would look like in the eyes of an ordinary person.

He referred to the ignorance of one's own social status, wealth or riches, profession, qualifications, intelligence, and even personal moral preferences as the "veil of ignorance." His argument is that if anyone thinks from this original position, they can reach the same consensus on the true nature of justice. This is because this original position "excludes knowledge of those contingent and temporary factors that confront people with one another and push them towards blind prejudices or biases."

Another key concept of this book is 'reflective equilibrium': repeatedly returning to old ideas, contemplating their strengths and weaknesses, and rearranging one's thoughts accordingly. Although the book does not delve deeply into this topic, its influence is profoundly woven into each of Rawls's arguments. A Theory of Justice is quite lengthy and may seem somewhat repetitive in certain places, but this repetition primarily occurs as a result of Rawls's effort to distill and refine his own thoughts to reach a balanced equilibrium (which is achieved after nearly 500 pages of discussion).

It is quite difficult to separate Rawls' secondary concepts. They are deeply intertwined with one another, and Rawls has used them as tools to help the reader understand how his thoughts have developed. In simple terms, it is these accompanying concepts that outline his main ideas regarding justice and fairness.

Spread of Ideas

Rawls believes that his concept of the 'original position' is crucial for helping people reach a universal and rational decision regarding social justice. He emphasizes that this fundamental position is a completely hypothetical framework. However, many critics have argued that imagining such a state is entirely impossible in reality.

In response, Rawls says: ‘The hypothetical nature of the original position raises a question: why would we be interested in it for moral or any other reason? Consider the answer: the conditions used to describe this situation are ones we adhere to in reality as well. And even if we do not adhere to them, it is possible to persuade us to accept them through philosophical discussion.’

Rawls's statement is filled with an incredible amount of confidence. He has been thinking about justice for many years. His research and thought process were extremely careful and organized. As a result, he makes a significant assumption that—if any other person thinks about these issues with the same level of caution, they will also arrive at the exact same conclusion.

So what is the need for so much effort behind this hypothetical test of the 'original position'? Because we have already accepted its fundamental conditions; and even if we do not accept them, Rawls will be able to convince us that his conditions are absolutely correct!

Here lies a great irony—one of the political ideologies that Rawls most strongly rejected is Marxism; yet that very Marxism also makes a similar assumption. They believe that those who do not adhere to Marxism are primarily under the influence of 'false consciousness.' Once they receive the correct education about the real political situation of society, they will inevitably agree with Karl Marx. From this perspective, there remains a risk that Rawls's theory could also become a specific ideology—one that is extremely certain about its own conditions and very stubborn in implementing the path it outlines.

Neglected Aspects

The third part of the book "A Theory of Justice" is one of the most overlooked sections of Rawls's entire work. Here, Rawls discusses the relationship between moral psychology and justice, and presents the concept of the 'Sentiment of Justice' or 'the feeling of justice.' The main point is that members of a specific society hold a common and shared perspective on justice.

In the continuation of this discussion, Rawls has pointed to the outcome of a society where there exists a shared understanding of justice among all. His argument is that when a society's conception of justice aligns with its social values, that society can be referred to as a 'well-ordered society.' In such a well-ordered society, the likelihood of maintaining stability is the highest. Rawls further claims that when there is a shared sense of justice among people, it helps the society to persist on the path of justice as a common social good.

Recently, researchers have begun to show renewed interest in this aspect of Rawls's theory. A relevant example is the work of American philosopher Paul Whitman. His research analyzes the transformation that occurred from Rawls's original theory of justice to his later thoughts in "Political Liberalism." Whitman argues that the book "A Theory of Justice," which many consider to be extremely individualistic and Kantian (based on the ideas of Immanuel Kant), is not as much so in reality. He uses Rawls's concepts of "stability" and "the sense of justice" to demonstrate that Rawls's philosophy fundamentally rests on a deep human "sense of justice." This essentially refers to the spiritual and moral capacity of individuals through which they create a shared morality, and upon which the fundamental stability of an orderly society relies.

Evaluation of Rawls' Argument

In the book A Theory of Justice, John Rawls assumes that his theory is applicable to a 'well-ordered society'—however, it may not be the case that all societies in the world will adhere to the conditions of 'well-ordered' as outlined by Rawls.

For example, let’s consider a society that is stratified and whose entire structure is based on a comprehensive moral concept (such as a monarchy where the dignity and inequality of citizens are not solely determined by their qualifications or abilities). Nevertheless, that society can provide a respectable guarantee of fundamental rights for its citizens. Rawls discusses this possibility in his later book, The Law of Peoples. He gives the example of an imaginary state: 'Kazakhstan.' Rawls argues that liberals should not interfere or meddle in the internal affairs of this society, as it would contradict the principles of tolerance that liberals uphold. This example illustrates the limitation of Rawls's theory, which claims that his theory is universally applicable.

American political theorist Charles Beitz and German philosopher Thomas Pogge, among others (in different ways), have argued that Rawls's principles of equal liberty and the difference principle can be applied internationally. Contradicting Rawls's own views, Beitz and Pogge state that cultural differences between states can never be an obstacle to universal human rights (such as social and economic rights) and the establishment of global social justice. However, in his book The Law of Peoples, Rawls claims that only basic human rights are universal.

Even those who disagree with Rawls are full of praise for his work. One of his sharpest critics, Canadian-born Marxist philosopher Gerald Cohen, has written: ‘In the history of Western political philosophy, at most two books can be claimed to be better than "A Theory of Justice": Plato's "Republic" and Hobbes's "Leviathan."’

Upon its publication, the book "A Theory of Justice" was considered an essential and foundational text. Rawls's thinking shifts the focus of political theory from utilitarianism to the individual's own welfare.

His desire to move political theory away from utilitarianism was indeed successful; however, his thoughts on establishing justice present a universal blueprint or perfect design—this hope puts the subsequent trajectory of global politics to a significant test. Universalism is not always the main goal of any political theory; nor does every society seek to achieve a universal model of governance. The Cold War may have obscured this reality for a time. Both the Soviet Union and America wanted to convey to the world that their system was the best way to govern society. Both countries believed that their model should be offered as a gift to the entire world. However, Rawls rejected the belief in any predetermined ultimate outcome shown in the histories of Marxism or liberalism; yet he ultimately returns to the same tendency towards universalism. After two long decades of contemplating justice, Rawls firmly claims that his proposed decisions are such that any reasonable or rational person, upon reflection, would arrive at the same conclusions.

Despite these limitations, 'A Theory of Justice' establishes itself as the most influential work in political theory at the end of the twentieth century. It remains highly influential and a central focus in the research of renowned thinkers like Nobel laureate philosopher and economist Amartya Sen.

Some Limitations

Whether his theory is universally applicable—this controversial issue has been a significant focus of Rawls's later works. In his book "The Law of Peoples," he presents his thoughts on international justice. Other researchers have also debated whether his theory can truly be applied globally, or if it is only effective in Western or traditionally liberal societies.

In the book "A Theory of Justice," Rawls discussed the application of his ideas in the international arena. He claims that his original position thought experiment only correctly proves the first principle of justice: that is, the right of each nation to be equally free. In this sense, Rawls's theory is universal; it acknowledges that each nation should have full freedom of self-determination and self-defense.

However, Rawls states that the second principle of justice—that is, the principle of the distribution of opportunities and resources—is not universally applicable. This is because it depends on a community or social system that has a shared sense of justice. Even organizations like the European Union, which is thought to be based on shared European values and identity, have faced significant challenges in the area of resource distribution. Establishing a just system for the allocation of public funds and determining appropriate public spending policies is extremely difficult. This issue significantly narrows the scope of Rawls's universal principle of justice, and in some cases, even undermines it.

It is perhaps a reality that these principles are applicable only within the framework of a liberal society—where all members of the society share a nearly identical way of thinking about justice.

Criticism

Just a few years after the publication of John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" in 1971, American philosopher Robert Nozick expressed his arguments against Rawls' ideas. Nozick strongly opposed the notion that Rawls proposed of making society more equal through taxation and the redistribution of wealth. Subsequently, there was also intense criticism from 'communitarian' thinkers. Communitarians unanimously reject the idea that individuals can independently develop their own moral concepts outside the society or group in which they live.

Scottish philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre and Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, like communitarian thinkers, question the very foundation of Rawls' theory. Criticizing the notion that humans can think morally in a completely objective and neutral manner, they argue that Rawls' prioritization of the concept of 'the right' over 'the good' is problematic.

MacIntyre's argument is that it is impossible to view a person's moral thinking separately from their historical and cultural heritage. Therefore, claiming that there is a universal consensus among all of humanity about what 'right' is is historically disconnected and misleading. Similarly, Taylor states that it is unrealistic to separate ethics and morality from society; in simple terms, what is 'right' or correct for society cannot be separated from what is 'good or beneficial' for the individual. Another communitarian critic of Rawls, American philosopher Michael Sandel, challenges Rawls's notion of the 'original position.' Sandel argues that it is entirely impossible for any person to think neutrally about ethics outside of a specific social and moral framework.

Rawls has faced criticism from leftist thinkers as well. Marxist scholar Gerald Cohen argues that Rawls's concept of equality is not sufficiently egalitarian. According to Cohen, a genuine egalitarian theory of justice can never accept the level of inequality that Rawls's Difference Principle allows. He completely rejects the Rawlsian notion of tolerating inequality on the grounds that it will benefit the most disadvantaged members of society.

Responses

Rawls responded to his critics in various speeches, essays, and the revised edition of A Theory of Justice published in 1999. His approach to criticism was to gladly accept those critiques that could weaken his theory, reflect on them, and where the criticism seemed valid, to refine his own thoughts. He also presented counterarguments, which sparked new discussions in the academic world.

In the revised edition of the book, Rawls responds to the early criticisms made by the British philosopher H. L. A. Hart. Hart had pointed out some flaws in Rawls's concept of 'freedom.' In response, Rawls makes some changes to his definition of freedom. In other papers and lectures, Rawls has also addressed his communitarian critics.

In his essay collection Political Liberalism, Rawls mentions that his theory is essentially a theory of political liberalism. This means that he is discussing ethics and morality solely in the context of the political arena. It does not conflict with individuals' personal religious or moral beliefs—as long as those beliefs do not violate the fundamental principles of justice. Political liberalism is not a universal or comprehensive moral doctrine (like various religions or faiths); rather, it accepts pluralism—a political system that allows people from different ethnic or religious backgrounds to coexist.

After clarifying these issues, Rawls remains steadfast in the fundamental foundation of his theory; he has not made any significant changes to his original concept of justice within society.

Dissent and Consensus

As we have seen, the most significant criticisms of Rawls came from communitarian thinkers. In particular, the arguments of philosopher Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor were extremely influential. They demonstrated that there is a holistic understanding of human well-being, and this understanding forms the foundation of justice and fairness. This argument is contrary to Rawls's idea—where it was stated that in a just society, 'justice' will always take precedence over 'well-being or good.'

Perhaps the most significant addition to Rawls's theory occurred with the publication of his book "The Law of Peoples." Here, he takes his fundamental theory of justice into a global context. In the book "A Theory of Justice," he briefly mentioned international justice, and in this book, he enriches and refines that concept further. However, these changes did not occur solely due to criticism from other scholars; rather, Rawls himself recognized the limitations of his theory in the realm of international politics.

The general consensus among researchers is that no matter how much criticism John Rawls's theory faces, none of it has been able to destroy this great creation of his. In the realm of political theory, Rawls's work is still considered one of the best and most successful studies. His critics remain active today, continuing their critiques; however, his work remains a primary reference in modern political theory, opening the door to new ideas and debates.

Contemporary Research

Among the researchers and scholars who consider John Rawls as the main inspiration for their thinking are Charles Bates, Thomas Pogge, American philosopher Thomas Nagel, Thomas Scanlon, Joshua Cohen, Samuel Freeman, and Paul Whitman, as well as Irish philosopher Onora O'Neill.

Cosmopolitan or global thinkers like Charles Beitz, American philosopher Martha Nussbaum, and British political theorist Simon Caney have discussed issues of global justice using Rawls's framework. A significant part of this debate hinges on whether the international justice perspective presented in Rawls's book "The Law of Peoples" provides assurance of indirect and sufficient criteria for justice. Another influential thinker contributing to this discussion is Amartya Sen, a philosopher born in India, who has elaborated on the problem of inequality and how poverty can be measured.

Although the issues of global justice and inequality have been widely discussed in political discourse, new topics such as environmental conservation and intergenerational justice are still gradually emerging. British philosopher Brian Barry has highlighted the limitations of Rawls' theory in the context of intergenerational issues, but this debate and discourse will continue to evolve in new forms in the future. The demand for justice will repeatedly arise in the new contexts of domestic and international politics.

Similarly, while the question of a just war has been around for hundreds of years, the 'new wars' that have started since 2000 have raised new questions about the ethics of war and its rules and regulations. Although Rawls does not directly answer these questions in his book, his theory provides a foundational framework that can be used to seek answers to these questions.

Summary

The book "A Theory of Justice" has inspired researchers and scholars from various fields interested in the concept of social justice, and it continues to do so today. Philosophers, lawmakers, anti-war activists, human rights workers, and many others have found inspiration in Rawls's work, while also facing various challenges. His fundamental and open perspective emphasizes the creation of a society that takes the best care of each of its citizens. Unlike many other political philosophers, Rawls has shown his readers how to engage in thinking like him. It provides readers the opportunity to imagine in their own way—what kinds of institutions and rules might be most effective in achieving the society they wish to live in, even if they are at the very bottom of the social structure.

Although written in 1971, Rawls' hypothetical ideas and the concepts he derived from them may be more relevant today than at any time before. Globalization, environmental degradation, changing types of employment, and the growing power of multinational corporations—these issues make it extremely necessary to rethink justice, equality, and fairness in today's world. As Rawls himself argued: 'Just as truth is the first virtue of systems of thought, justice is, in the same way, the first and foremost virtue of social institutions.'

This Theory of Justice will remain an immortal creation that will continuously provide its readers with new food for thought, inspire philosophical thinking, and offer political and social motivation.