John Rawls Quotes

In justice as fairness society is interpreted as a cooperative venture for mutual advantage.

Being happy involves both a certain achievement in action and a rational assurance about the outcome.

Clearly when the liberties are left unrestricted they collide with one another.

The extreme nature of dominant-end views is often concealed by the vagueness and ambiguity of the end proposed.

Justice does not require that men must stand idly by while others destroy the basis of their existence.

Essentially the fault lies in the fact that the democratic political process is at best regulated rivalry; it does not even in theory have the desirable properties that price theory ascribes to truly competitive markets.

Men resign themselves to their position should it ever occur to them to question it; and since all may view themselves as assigned their vocation, everyone is held to be equally fated and equally noble in the eyes of providence.

Let us now consider whether justice requires the toleration of the intolerant, and if so under what conditions. There are a variety of situations in which this question arises. Some political parties in democratic states hold doctrines that commit them to suppress the constitutional liberties whenever they have the power. Again, there are those who reject intellectual freedom but who nevertheless hold positions in the university. It may appear that toleration in these cases is inconsistent with the principles of justice, or at any rate not required by them.

It may be expedient but it is not just that some should have less in order that others may prosper.

Ideally a just constitution would be a just procedure arranged to insure a just outcome.

The suppression of liberty is always likely to be irrational.

Justice is happiness according to virtue.

First of all, no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like. Nor, again, does anyone know his conception of the good, the particulars of his rational plan of life, or even the special features of psychology such as his aversion to risk or liability to optimism or pessimism. More than this, I assume that the parties do not know the particular circumstances of their own society. That is, they do not know its particular economic or political situation, or the level of civilization and culture it has been able to achieve. The persons in the original position have no information as to which generation they belong.

Yet it seems extraordinary that the justice of increasing the expectations of the better placed by a billion dollars, say, should turn on whether the prospects of the least favored increase or decrease by a penny.

I am particularly grateful to Nozick for his unfailing help and encouragement during the last stages.