In a March 11, 2021, interview with Philosophy Magazine, Karl Lauterbach, now Germany’s health minister, concluded, “Corona policy is covered by Rawls.” Lauterbach, who advocates for limiting freedoms in favor of health protection during the current pandemic, had studied with Rawls in the 1990s. John Rawls, who would have turned 100 in 2021, is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. His Theory of Justice was published 51 years ago.

Personal experiences may have contributed to the fact that Rawls devoted himself almost exclusively to the topic of justice (his second main work deals with international law). He came from a well-to-do family and enjoyed a private school education. He fell seriously ill twice in his childhood but survived while two siblings died. Rawls felt this was an undeserved privilege. In addition, he had personal experiences as a soldier in the war against Japan. He considered the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be unjust, as he believed the war would have been won even without them.

The ancient understanding of justice

Rawls’ conception of justice has little in common with ancient virtue ethics, such as that of Aristotle. Virtue here means something like fitness to achieve an end (télos) inherent in a thing. Who should get a flute? For Aristotle, it is just to give it to the person who plays it best, because the purpose of the flute is to be played well. The fact that people enjoy its sound and thus benefit from it is secondary. Rather, the idea of merit plays a role.

With Plato, justice (dikaiosýne) means that all soul forces (reason, courage, desire) fulfill the activity assigned to them in the correct measure given by reason and thus fulfill the virtues of wisdom, bravery, and moderation. But justice implies also having the “right” inner order of the soul forces, as there is a “right” outer order, the cosmos ruled by the logos. The goal of justice, taken for granted, is the attainment of happiness (eudaimonia).

Kant’s categorical imperative

Rawls’ thinking, on the other hand, bears certain similarities to that of Immanuel Kant. With the categorical imperative, Kant had formulated a general rule on the basis of which personal or collective (traditional) principles of action are to be examined: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” This imperative demands the generalizing of the personal: my norm must apply to everyone. For example: you shall not kill or lie. The similarity with the golden rule, which is based on the reversibility of actions, is obvious: “Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated.”

Kant is not a utilitarian or consequentialist—i.e., someone who focuses on benefits or consequences. He is not concerned with advantages for society nor with the consequences of an action, but solely with the internal consistency of a will that declares itself to be good.

The original position in Rawls

Whereas Kant’s imperative represents an (ethical) norm of the verification of real (moral) rules of conduct originating in the living world, Rawls assumes an “original position,” a primal situation in which a rational subject oriented to self-interest must decide on a social constitution. In this way, he joins the contractarian thinking of the modern era, whose best-known representatives are Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. This had led to very different results, ranging from the authoritarian state (Hobbes) to the liberal state with separation of powers (Locke) to a state oriented to the common good (volonté générale) in Rousseau.

While the classical contract theories wanted to justify the emergence and thus the legitimacy of states, Rawls is only concerned with their institutional configuration and, in particular, with how economic life (markets, wealth, and income) can be fairly regulated in them. For him, justice means fairness of the initial conditions. The point of his primal choice is that it takes place behind a “veil of ignorance.” This image is reminiscent of the allegorical representation of Justitia, who makes her legal judgment blindfolded—that is, “without regard to the person.” The blindfold thus ensures impartiality.

With Rawls, man in the primal situation does not know his future social position (class, standing), gender, ethnicity, religion, etc., but also personal characteristics and talents are unknown to him [1]. Furthermore, he also does not know how often certain positions in society will be occupied—for example how many rich, how many poor, and how many middle-class people there will be. His choice is therefore not made under risk but under uncertainty. In a sense, it is a lottery, not a chess game, in which one must consider the behavior of other participants and calculate the best possible outcome. This represents a major preliminary decision against utilitarianism, which was dominant in the Anglo-Saxon world in his time. One variety of this doctrine holds that a society is just if it maximizes total and, consequently, average, utility. Determining this maximum utility, however, is impossible under Rawls’s specifications, since it presupposes that one can form the product of social position and “wealth” (benefits of all kinds). At most, one could assume that each of the possible social positions is equally probable (here, 1/3). However, this implies the completely unrealistic assumption that the number of kings (billionaires) and the number of slaves (unemployed, low-wage workers) would be equal.

Behind the rejection of utilitarianism lies a genuine ethical principle. According to Kant, man possesses dignity insofar as he is never only a means (e.g., an employee working for a company), but always also an end (a moral subject whom I must not deceive, etc.). Utilitarianism in the sense of the greatest happiness of the greatest number would mean, however, to instrumentalize a human being for the common good if necessary—for example, to withhold rights from him, if the loss of freedom is (over-)compensated for by the good of others.

Two principles

Rawls holds that, given ignorance of themselves, people would choose the following two social principles on rational grounds (i.e., without being driven by envy):

First principle: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

Second principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity [2].

In this context, the goods falling under the first principle, namely freedoms, are superior to those falling under the second—(a) income and wealth and (b) opportunities—and must not be impaired.

A rational person, Rawls argues, would decide according to the maximin rule in the face of complete uncertainty. He will not choose the state that promises him the most money, the most power (billionaire, king), but will take his orientation at the lower end and choose the state that grants the most rights, the best opportunities, and the highest income to the worst off. Not knowing what his future situation will be, he will seek to maximize the minimum because he shuns risk. As a loser in the lottery, he would eventually find himself homeless on the street.

With the first principle, Rawls specifies the freedoms of Western democracies (free elections, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc.). It states that one must compare the situation of the respective worse off in a “system of rights.” For example, with regard to religious freedom, Rawls would argue that a fundamentalist who wants to establish a state religion is less disadvantaged in a secular state, where religion and state are separate, than a person who does not belong to the state church is in a “fundamentalist” state.

The second principle also involves organizing the state “to the greatest advantage” of the worst-off. Thus, it is not enough that the worst-off also have some benefit from the distribution of goods (for example, according to the trickle-down principle, which states that the money of the rich “leaks out” to the poor), but it must be the greatest in comparison with other distributions. Intergenerational equity (“consistent with the just savings principle,” no state may incur excessive debt at the expense of the next generation) must also be considered, with which Rawls already anticipated a debt brake. (However, he did not yet have the destruction of the environment in mind).

But there is a second side to the coin: differences, i.e., inequalities, are permissible if they improve the situation of the deprived. Rawls called this principle the “difference principle.” As another example, a market economy would be justified, despite all social and financial differences, if it provided the weakest in society with a higher income than an egalitarian state economy in which everyone pro forma owned the means of production (without ever being able to sell them). Whether this is actually so, however, is a matter for economists to decide.

Rawls is thus not fundamentally in favor of an equal distribution of goods. The situation is different for rights and freedoms, but also for opportunities, such as access to education and public office. Here, the state must intervene—for example, by increasing the supply of good schools or introducing universal health care (which still does not exist in the United States). However, for the most part it is not at all clear who the worst-off in a society are. During the Covid-19 pandemic, is it the elderly who get sick, or the children who can’t go to school or visit friends? Does data protection (e.g., tracking cases of illness via apps) beat health protection? Or health protection the right to physical integrity (vaccination), freedom of assembly and movement (lockdown, breaking up demonstrations)? Incidentally, Lauterbach argues for the latter, citing Rawls, by pointing out that securing life is a prerequisite for being able to make use of freedoms at all. Whoever dies from Covid no longer has liberties to use.

Criticism

Philosophical theories suffer from a lack of ultimate justification. As a rule, they contain assumptions—e.g., about the “nature” of man—which are empirically disputed by others, such as with reference to presumed scientific evidence, personal observation, or introspection. Rawls, for example, considers humans to be risk-averse, which a philosophical optimist would probably doubt.

Above all, however, the conception of a primordial situation has been criticized. From a liberalist point of view, it lacks the historical dimension. According to this view, property goes back to free actions of individuals and thus to rights of entitlement (taking of nature, exchange, inheritance, donation, etc.) and has nothing to do with distribution patterns of any kind. Thus, even in an egalitarian society, new distributions (injustices) will emerge very quickly (which can be well observed in the game of Monopoly), necessitating constant new interventions.

Communitarians, on the other hand, emphasize the importance of community. With the fiction of a primordial choice and a veil of ignorance, behind which is chosen according to the rules of a calculus, a tabula rasa is arbitrarily established, from which neither solidarity nor substantial justice can be derived. Rather, the individual is involved in socially established cooperative practices that have internal rules, virtues, and purposes. In the background of these considerations is Hegel’s concept of “Sittlichkeit” (ethical life). Sittlichkeit implies more than an abstract system of (moral) norms, as conceived by Rawls. It is the form of life passed on by a community, which also includes religions with their canons of values.

Finally, especially in Germany, there is the position of discourse ethics, whose most prominent representative is Habermas. It differs from Rawls’ original situation in that it is not an abstract calculation that decides on justice but a discourse free of domination—a deliberation in which everyone can participate as a speaker equally but in which, turned against communitarianism, traditional practices, discourses, and virtues can also be questioned. Even if such a discourse does not take place in reality, so the assumption goes, it is implicitly presupposed in every utterance insofar as it lays claim to validity. Where Rawls considers the maximin principle to be generally agreeable, Habermas believes in the “unconstrained compulsion of the better argument” and the self-commitment of speakers to truth and reason. However, in view of the testy public debates, especially those around fake news that we are currently experiencing, this position also seems doubtful. One might suspect that they are rather “monologues” for the assertion of interpretive power, which, moreover, do not end in agreement but in the audience’s exhaustion.

Notes

1. From a moral philosophical point of view, this assumption can be justified by the fact that neither genetic endowment (nature) nor environmental conditions such as education and social milieu (nurture) can be attributed to merit. From this it should follow that also “strength of will” and “weakness of will” and consequently the use I make of my abilities are morally arbitrary. Diligence, decisiveness, resilience, etc., which are crucial for developing talents, would thus also not be in the hands of the individual. However, Rawls seems to be reluctant to accept this consequence, since it would have far-reaching consequences for the punishment system, for example.
2. John Rawls (1999): A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 46, p. 266.

In its capacity to manifest Divine Names and the many duties assigned to it, earth is as worthy as all the heavens. Each time the outer crust of the earth comes into contact with the atmosphere, it undergoes a mysterious process of formation, layer after layer, to warmly embrace plants and animals so they can exist and survive. Earth is prosperous, mothering billions of lives even in a single milligram of its mass. It is magnanimous, housing tons of bacteria, tiny insects, and worms which constantly penetrate it to fulfill their assigned duties. It is a mirror of countless Divine manifestations, a magnificent workbench, and a fascinating laboratory of chemistry and biology.

It can be said, thus, that earth is the most valuable asset and the most magical part of the whole universe, particularly of our planet. Air, water, and light, as it were, sustain with it and exist for it. This is why, this “down-to-earth” yet “significant-beyond-the-heavens” element, in whose embrace we and millions of other beings arise and grow, is mentioned quite often in the Holy Qur’an. It is virtually held equal to all the heavens, glorified as our origin, and presented to our attention as a bridge, a port, a launching platform that leads to the worlds beyond. In between the lines of verses, one is reminded of the knowledge the wisdom, and the blessing and favor of God:

“And after that He has spread out the earth. Out of it, He has brought forth its waters and its herbage. And the mountains He has set firm.” (an-Naziat 30-32)

Many verses in the Qur’an remind us of the relationship between the earth and the atmosphere, the precise arrangement of the layers of the Earth’s crust that enables them to preserve water inside them, then the spouting of that water according to a certain order and balance, the formation of that water into rivers, the irrigation of vineyards and gardens with these rivers, and finally the vaporizing of all these sources of water so that they are ready for service once again.

Earth displays special care and diligence in terms of its content and richness, and it has been made a place of joy through life and has been made valuable beyond all else, especially through human life. This can be seen as the most significant of events and happenings in our world—in fact, in the whole universe. Even so, these features and the system of order and wisdom, balance and Divine aid that these features embody have not been comprehended in full, but God Almighty, in His timeless declaration, always emphasizes these features and their different dimensions, and reminds us and other conscious beings of His profound and endless bounties. He opens gateways in our world of reflection and contemplation, gateways to existence and to what is beyond the veil of existence, taking us out on a stroll in the peaceful and prosperous environment of belief and contentment. “And it is He Who has spread the earth wide and set therein firm mountains and rivers, and of fruit of every kind He has made mated pairs. He covers the day with the night. Surely in that are signs (manifesting the truth) for people who reflect” (ar-Ra’d, 3).

It is possible to point out many more verses from the Holy Qur’an in which these features are expressed in different styles and manners. Nearly every one of these verses shows us that in order for the world to be a suitable and convenient place for human life, the earth has had to undergo constant change and transformation. The Infinitely Powerful One blessed with joy every different phase of this long process with living beings of sorts of species dwelling on the land. He manifested His Divine attributes of knowledge (‘ilm), free will (irada), and life (haya) to make the rivers and seas into cascades of life, and specifically turned the layer of earth, both under and above the soil, into a place of exhibition and gathering for all living beings.

Earth has a magical content and internal structure. It’s possible to view it as a single living being, or a live chemistry or biology lab. Indeed, earth is the point of convergence and cohesion between air, water, and light. It is the operator and central line through which all of these are transported to us in a useful and rewarding way. And finally, it is a factory of transformation in which everything is made into a useful substance and presented to us for our benefit and enjoyment. In this respect, we can see it as the focal point of everything else—the most vital part of life. Gases and lava, the foundational elements of the planet, reached their first phase of perfection through becoming earth and completed their natural ascension by transforming into it. At the end of that process, the road leading to the human being started with earth, finished with earth, and, by attaining a state above earth, turned the human into a celestial being.

With its colorful prairies and meadows, breezy gardens and vineyards, its mountains and hills that make you tremble, and its seas and rivers that send a wave of astonishment to our hearts, the earth has almost always reminded us of the heavens we have been separated from and has always been a source of consolation against the passionate longing of our hearts for their true home.  Looking at its features, we have always become sorrowful, remembering the heavens we lost, and, at the same time, we have found consolation in it, thinking of the gardens and vineyards of the Hereafter, which the earth’s enchanting beauty brings to our minds.

It has taken millions of years for the earth covering the face of our world to reach its present stage in the hands of the All Powerful One. It has taken millions of years for it to become ornate with a cover of vegetation and plants, to fill with the joy of living beings. Through human beings, earth has become something that is felt, life in it truly experienced, sharing with us everything it possesses.

Nowadays, right when it has reached the right consistency to reflect the grandeur of the heavens, I wonder if those who are turning its balances upside-down and destroying its harmony are aware that they are destroying the result of a process that has taken billions of years—billions of years of manifestation of the Divine. The destruction has reached a stage beyond imagination, and with the elimination of certain important elements from the face of the earth, the balance between the living and non-living elements that were left behind has been altered. Once again “mother earth” has come face to face with the betrayal of her own children.

Indeed, the fact that the overall balance has been altered through the extinction of certain living and non-living species—whether intentional, due to economic inevitability, or caused by ignorance—it is an outright betrayal to the world in which we have come into existence and grown. It is nothing more than turning our own shelter into a place in which we cannot sustain our lives. Sooner or later, the laws of creation will respond to this betrayal and will certainly punish us for this atrocity. It will punish and completely turn away from us, and, living or non-living, every single being will take its share from this resentment. The atmosphere will weaken due to harmful gasses. Rains of acid will fall from the skies in place of mercy and abundance, and when rain does fall it will sweep the soil in front of it and will drive it into the seas. The vegetation and plants will be scattered to and fro with the gusts of autumn, taking with them our every expectation of spring. And our Earth, always more compassionate than a mother, will let itself go, turning into a hell-like desert and sending its children to and fro as if trembling from a blow of the horn of Israfil.

By nature, earth, which stands shoulder-to-shoulder with air and is locked in a close embrace with water, has always, as part of its duty, cosseted us like a mother. With its prairies and meadows, its gardens and vineyards, its silver streams and golden pastures, it has stood with the strength of a father in the face of our mistakes, and it is such a warm, faithful, and sincere source of life that has kept alive the thoughts of Paradise we once lost. Those who have failed to see the fact that earth is actually an officer on duty ready at our disposal with firm loyalty, have associated it with a kind of mystery and magic beyond what it actually possesses. Just as the people of the Ganges Basin have sanctified the Ganges River, and the people of the Amazon have deemed the Amazon sacred, and certain natives of Canada have associated Niagara with certain Divine features, they have accepted the earth as having the power to create.

Both our world and the layer of earth covering it are merely mirrors of Divine manifestations, and the brilliance we witness in them are the embodiment of Divine possibilities. According to Bediuzzaman, just as the Earth is the heart of the universe, the element earth is the heart of our world. Earth is the symbol of the roads that lead human beings to the grandest of goals, roads such as modesty and humility. In fact, when compared to the highest of skies, earth is a more direct way of reaching the One who has created those skies: for earth is the most appropriate, the most convenient foundation for the manifestations of the names Hayy and Qayyum (the One who gives life and sustains it) and for the signs of God Almighty’s Lordship throughout the universe and the head-spinning events that are carried out through His Eternal Power. God Almighty’s superiority in mercy is manifest in water, and His superiority in life and giving life is manifest in earth—and earth is the most brilliant, the most lucid mirror for every manifestation of the Divine.

The more delightful and pleasant the mirror is when held to an opaque substance, the more visible the shapes will be that form in that mirror. The more opaque the mirror held to a heavenly and graceful being, the brighter it will reflect the manifestations of the Divine Names. For example, only a weak radiance of light from the sun is visible in the air; in the mirror of water, however, there is an even brighter reflection. When earth reflects the light, one can witness the seven different colors of sunlight.

Despite its profound content and richness, earth, or the soil, has always been a sign of humility and modesty, and its lips have always been at the soles of our feet. There are those who feel the humility and modesty of the earth in their very souls and who connect their feet and head at the same point, forming a kind of circle; the earth kisses them on their foreheads and lets their souls fill with the secrets of being close to the Ultimate True One. It whispers these poetic phrases to those who wish to turn their hearts into gardens of roses: Be like earth so that you can grow roses, for it is not possible for anything other than the earth to truly nurture roses.

Hopefully, the days are near when a fresh breath of air will embrace our souls; when trees, humans, earth, water, land, and sky will flow into our hearts and take us to a new wedding with the Beloved.