The
Veil of Ignorance –
The
Original Position and Social Contract Doctrine
Part II
There
is no doubt in my mind that the original position on social contracts and
social justice had more of a limited role in most models. I know that for
certain, it became a doctrine that served as an authority for the legitimacy of
sociopolitical power or authority. Once written and explained, many versions
popped up with variances that suit the various needs of government as well as
social circles around us.
Since
a social contract is a non-binding contract and rather based on customs and
practices, there was no fear of anything or anyone gaining absolute power that
would enforce certain elements of such an understanding. One thing must be
explained before we go further and that is to mention the fact that these
principles can only be applied to men and women who are equal, free and able to
articulate the justice in their societies. Certainly, those who are not equal,
free or unable to comprehend would not be able to fully execute these
principles in true spirit as violations would be frequent and arbitrarily
imposed.
By
now, if you followed the writings so far, you can see how a social contract may
in fact facilitate a venue or window for assessing existing laws or by-laws and
allows these assessments to evaluate their effectiveness or appropriateness to
be applied to the citizens who require and demand social order for the common
good. Keep in mind the original position of such a contract was to determine
and assess the justice of political constitutions which in part impacted
various elements of government beginning with the economic, national security
and internal social arrangements of a body. What started as a reasonable base
for rational conduct or behaviors could be elevated to recognize lawful or
unlawful behavior and practices, either for the good of all or for the conduct
towards one or another in a court of law.
Thus
we see how the concept of social justice can be expanded to accept larger roles
in our lives and in the way we establish law and order. It could be argued that
the original position was really never about social justice but merely a social
base for justice. To infer to say that justice is predominantly social does not
mean that people do not have “natural” moral rights and duties outside
society or in non-cooperative circumstances, based purely on relationships and
associations.
Again,
the goal here was to establish a social interaction and level of cooperation
that had reciprocity built into it so that there are mutual gains and reasons
for an organized society rather than a loose and irrational capacity to run a
lawless or disorderly society, much like
mindless animals do when in a herd, pack or group. Although this category of
society may be mindless, they would still remain natural and entitled to basic
rights, claims etc. forming conflicts as this undermines the main point of the
idea of a state of nature in many views, which is to distinguish their powers
and competencies they have prior to joining or belonging to a legitimate membership
in society.
Not
being members of some society is not an option for us. In so far as we are
rational and reasonable beings at all, we have developed as members of a
society, within its social framework and institutions. So although the original
concept was set forth mainly as a foundation of moral significance, the
expansion of the social contract allows an adequate span of control of the
state of nature or society as long as it retains an adequate level of impartial
judgment and the equality of persons. In
theory, this social contract would benefit all who are free.
I
hope you are following this evolution of the social contract into what is evolving
into a more complex understanding of principles and moral judgment. What has
changed here is the ability to convert a personal sociopolitical idea or theory
to of an individual’s ability to regulate himself or his family to a more
state-like regulation that includes a political constitution to abide by.
“This
constitution regulates rules that are perceived to be fair and impartial in nature
but are dedicated to bring about legislation and enforcement of laws and the
system of trials for adjudicating disputes; the bases of the economic system,
including the norms of property, its transfer and distribution, contractual
relations, etc. which are all necessary for economic production, exchange, and
consumption; and finally norms that define and regulate permissible forms of
the family, which is needed to perpetuate society.” (Rawls)
Thus
the roles changed and the power has shifted. Under this social contract, it is
the “primary role to apply those principles of justice to specify and assess
the system of rules that constitute these basic institutions, and determine the
fair distribution of rights, duties, opportunities, powers and positions of
office to be realized within them.” (Rawls)
What
makes these institutions and their arrangement the first subject for principles
of social justice is that they are all necessary to social cooperation and have
such profound influences on our circumstances, aims, characters, and future
prospects. No society could exist without certain rules of property, contract,
and transfer of goods and resources, for they make economic production, trade,
and consumption possible. (Rawls)
In
concluding this writing, it must be maintained that a social contract is only
as good as the fairness and justice provided to be impartial and without biases
when principles are executed by men in the name of justice. One can see the
perverted impact and negative effects of corruption by men who seek more power
and authority in such instances and opportunities. This is the number one
problem today in our society. Power, authority, greed and gluttony for more are
the base for corporate and individual corruption.
Once
we submitted our own authority, ability to control reasoning and provide an
extension of such an authority, we essentially signed over all control with the
exception of a few basic human rights maintained by law and not society in a
whole. Losing leverage of our own decision making process and giving it to the
politicians has created chaos and unfortunate crisis in our national health
systems, national security, economic base and our demographics related to
cultural diversity, customs and practices with many political ramifications
rather than justice as it was originally intended at the beginning of forming a
binding social contract.
The following works by
John Rawls are cited above.
[TJ] A Theory of Justice,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Revised edition, 1999.
The page citations refer first to the 1971 edition first, and the revised
edition thereafter, as in (TJ 17/16).
No comments:
Post a Comment