John Rawls' Theory of Justice: Foundations, Principles, and Enduring Relevance

This study critically analyzed the theory of justice advanced by John Rawls, focusing on its foundational assumptions, principles, and continuing relevance in contemporary political and policy discourse, particularly through the lenses of fairness, equality, and distributive justice as articulated in the original position and the veil of ignorance, which were designed to ensure impartial selection of principles governing society; from this framework emerged the principle of equal basic liberties for all and the difference principle, which permits social and economic inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged and are attached to positions open under fair equality of opportunity, thereby aiming to institutionalize fairness within liberal democratic systems. Using a qualitative and analytical methodology based on critical textual analysis of Rawls’ works and major philosophical critiques from scholars such as Robert Nozick, Amartya Sen, and others, the study employed a comparative normative approach against libertarianism, communitarianism, Marxism, and multiculturalism, emphasizing interpretive synthesis and conceptual clarification in relation to governance challenges such as inequality, social welfare, and public policy design. Findings indicated that Rawls’ theory remains highly influential in shaping debates on constitutionalism, human rights, and welfare policy, yet it is limited by its abstract assumptions, limited applicability in deeply unequal or non-ideal societies, and insufficient engagement with cultural diversity and historical injustice, with critics arguing that the difference principle may still legitimize inequality and overlook structural power imbalances. Libertarian critiques, particularly associated with Nozick, rejected Rawls’ redistributive justice as coercive and incompatible with inviolable property rights, advocating instead for a minimal state grounded in entitlement theory; communitarian critiques, associated with thinkers such as Michael Sandel, challenged Rawls’ notion of the unencumbered self, emphasizing that identity is socially embedded and justice must reflect shared communal values; Marxist critiques argued that Rawls fails to address capitalist structures that generate inequality, viewing his framework as reformist rather than transformative; while multiculturalist critiques, associated with Will Kymlicka, emphasized that Rawls’ universalism neglects cultural diversity and group-based injustices, calling for recognition and differentiated rights for marginalized communities. Despite these critiques, Rawls’ theory remains a powerful moral benchmark for evaluating institutions, and the study recommended a contextualized and pluralistic application of Rawlsian principles in public administration, through integration with capability approaches and restorative justice frameworks, alongside strengthened participatory governance, inclusive policy design, and accountability mechanisms to better operationalize fairness in practice.

Justice, Rawlsian Theory, Original Position, Veil Of Ignorance, Difference Principle, Distributive Justice, Libertarianism, Communitarianism, Marxism, Multiculturalism

1. AKÇETİN, N. Ç. (2025). Politics Between the Right and the Good: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate Through Michael J. Sandel and the Limits of the Deliberative Republic. Beytulhikme: An International Journal of Philosophy, 15(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Armstrong, C. (2017). Justice and natural resources: An egalitarian theory. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Audard, C. (2024). Addressing the rise of inequalities: How relevant is Rawls's critique of welfare state capitalism?. Journal of Social Philosophy, 55(2), 221-237. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baehr, P. (2019). The image of the veil in social theory. Theory and Society, 48(4), 535–558. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Barata, A., & Cabrita, M. J. (2019). What principle of difference for a truly egalitarian social democracy? Rereading Rawls after social democracy’s failures. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 69. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Barber, B. R. (2021). The conquest of politics: Liberal philosophy in democratic times. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bisathu, J. (2018). A critical analysis of Jeremy Bentham's doctrine of utilitarianism, its efficacy and application in Africa's legal system. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bloom, J. M. (2019). Class, race, and the civil rights movement. Indiana University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Božac, Z. (2021). There’s me, there’s you, and there’s us: Separateness of persons, contractualism, and their role in establishing a distributive principle (Doctoral dissertation, Central European University). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Buchak, L. (2017). Taking risks behind the veil of ignorance. Ethics, 127(3), 610–644. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Carcieri, M. D. (2017). Rawls and reparations. In Rawls and law (pp. 395–444). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Cass, D. (2021). The priority of liberty: An argument from social equality. Law and Philosophy, 40(2), 129–161. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Colin-Jaeger, N. (2025). An overview of social contract theories: From Hobbes to contemporary theories. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Das, S. S., Singh, K., Kumar, R., Singh, J. N., & Kumar, P. (2024). Exploring the multifaceted landscape of human rights. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(5), 3346–3365. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. DeLue, S. M., & Dale, T. M. (2021). Political thinking, political theory, and civil society. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Demaske, C. (2019). Social justice, recognition theory and the First Amendment. Communication Law and Policy, 24(3), 347–401. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Edor, E. J. (2020). John Rawls's concept of justice as fairness. PINISI Discretion Review, 4(1), 179-190. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Eryılmaz, E. (2019). A critical assessment of John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness (Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Fanton, M., & Valdevino Oliveira Silva, W. (2023). Rawls’ theory of justice. In Encyclopedia of business and professional ethics (pp. 1539–1544). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Fleurbaey, M. (2019). Economic theories of justice. Annual Review of Economics, 11(1), 665–684. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Gališanka, A. (2019). John Rawls: The path to a theory of justice. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Gelaye, T. A. (2021). An enduring path for national unity and human rights protection in Ethiopia. Mizan Law Review, 15(1), 1–40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Gjorgjioska, M. A., & Tomicic, A. (2019). The crisis in social psychology under neoliberalism. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 169–188. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Gökçekuyu, E. (2024). John Rawls’ approach toward fair redistribution of resources. Ankara Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(14), 95–104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Greve, B. (2019). Welfare and the welfare state: Central issues now and in the future. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Guyer, P. (2018). Principles of justice, primary goods and categories of right. Kantian Review, 23(4), 581–613. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Harris, A. P., & Sen, M. (2019). Bias and judging. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 241–259. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Heath, J. (2022). Cooperation and social justice. University of Toronto Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Hitzig, Z. (2020). The normative gap. Economics & Philosophy, 36(3), 407–434. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Hobbes, T. (1964). Social contract theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/soc-cont [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Idoko, B. O., & Okeke, E. K. (2025). Moral Defense of John Rawls Theory of Justice as Fairness. Trinitarian: International Journal Of Arts And Humanities, 1(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Ikomi, G. P., & Idjakpo, O. G. (2025). Applying Rawls’ difference principle to fair poverty alleviation in Nigeria. Existentia: Concrescence Journal of Arts and Humanities, 3(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Jamnik, A. (2022). Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness as foundation and challenge for local self-government. Lex Localis: Journal of Local Self-Government, 20(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. John, R. (2017). Justice as fairness. In Power, Authority, Justice, and Rights (pp. 192-218). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Jun, H., & Lee, H. J. (2025). Justice beyond the human: A hybrid original position for human-AI assemblages. AI and Ethics, 5(6), 6077–6090. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Kamali, M. (2016). War, violence and social justice: Theories for social work. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Kelly, P. (Ed.). (2019). Impartiality, neutrality and justice: Re-reading Brian Barry’s justice as impartiality. Edinburgh University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Kerr, G. (2017). The property-owning democracy: Freedom and capitalism in the twenty-first century. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Knox, E. J. (2022). Foundations of intellectual freedom. American Library Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Kogelmann, B. (2019). Kant, Rawls, and the possibility of autonomy. Social Theory and Practice, 613–635. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Küçükuncular, A. (2026). Refined utilitarianism in practice. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 21(1), 3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Leal-Arcas, R. (2025). The future of global economic governance. Sustainability and Social Justice. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Lenczewska, O. (2021). Kant and Rawls on the moral and political development of persons. Stanford University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Lubis, A. R., & Azhami, M. R. A. N. (2025). Beyond the greatest happiness principle. Enigma in Law, 3(1), 1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Magar, R. B. P. (2025). Views of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau in the origin of the state. Khwopa Journal, 7(2), 122–133. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven masterpieces of philosophy (pp. 329–375). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Molla, E., Kochkorova, D., Ihnatiev, V., Smetaniak, M., & Kieliszek, Z. (2024). Philosophical aspects of social justice. Discusiones Filosóficas, 25(45), 15–47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Nehri, E. (2024). Reconsidering social and economic inequalities: A critical study on John Rawls’s difference principle (Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Nehri, E. (2024). Reconsidering Social and Economic Inequalities: A Critical Study on John Rawls’s Difference Principle (Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University (Turkey)). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Okcuoglu, D. (2024). Rawls, recognition, and the limits of democratic equality. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Orji, C. P. (2023). The social contracts from the lens of John Rawls’ veil of ignorance. IGWEBUIKE: An African Journal of Arts and Humanities, 9(4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Orji, C. P., Nwagbara, R. G., Egberongbe, T. T., & Chukwu, P. D. E. (2025). A critique of John Rawls’ ethical principle of justice. NIU Journal of Legal Studies, 11(1), 73–80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Ostrom, E. (2019). Institutional rational choice. In Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 21–64). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Pagkratis, N. (2020). John Rawls and property-owning democracy. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Parrouffe, P. (2020). The impasse of liberal (in) equality (Doctoral dissertation, University of Westminster). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Persson, A. (2022). Problems with the veil of ignorance and possible solutions. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Pirsoul, N. (2025). Multiculturalism and democracy: elite-based and deliberation-based policies of recognition. In Research Handbook on Multiculturalism (pp. 397-415). Edward Elgar Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Platt, L. (2019). Understanding inequalities: Stratification and difference. Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Prasad, A. (2018). When is economic inequality justified?. Business Horizons, 61(6), 855-862. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Raja, K. M., & Alias, M. S. (2024). Assessing John Stuart Mill’s principle of utility. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(9), 1973–1983. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Reidpath, D. D. (2025). Dignity, welfare, and the limits of sacrifice. Center for Open Science. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Reidy, D. A. (2023). Rawls, John: The argument for the two principles of justice. In Encyclopedia of the philosophy of law and social philosophy (pp. 2985–2995). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Rosenfeld, M. (2022). A pluralist theory of constitutional justice. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Rousseau, J. J. (2022). The major political writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Salahuddin, A. (2018). Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice, libertarian rights and the minimal state: A critical evaluation. Journal of Civil & Legal Sciences, 7(1), 1-5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Sam, W. (2025). Impartiality in judicial decision-making. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Sarma, A. J. (2020). Rawls’ Idea of a Liberal Self: A Communitarian Critique. Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 37(3), 383-402. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Scanlon, T. M. (2017). Rights, goals, and fairness. In Theories of rights (pp. 189–207). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Schmidt, C. (2018). Revisiting the veil of ignorance. Revue d’Histoire de la Pensée Economique, (5). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Schultz, B. (2024). Utilitarianism as a way of life. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Sheikh, F. (2024). Surveillance, privacy, and civil liberties. Frontiers in Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(01), 31–39. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Siemoneit, A. (2023). Merit first, need and equality second. International Review of Economics, 70(4), 537–567. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Sriram, C. L., Martin-Ortega, O., & Herman, J. (2017). War, conflict and human rights. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Stephen, A. O., & Ikechukwu, B. A. F. (2026). A Critical Analysis of Robert Nozick's Entitlement Theory of Justice, Human Rights, Law and Societal Development. Interdisciplinary Journal of African & Asian Studies (Ijaas), 12(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Von Platz, J. (2016). Social cooperation and basic economic rights. Journal of Social Philosophy, 47(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Warwick-Booth, L. (2022). Social inequality. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Weber, A. (2024). Civil liberties II. In Writing constitutions: Volume 2 (pp. 151–196). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Wolff, J. (2023). An introduction to political philosophy. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. Yadav, K. (2025). Amartya Sen’s theory of justice. Blue Rose Publishers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Youngmevittaya, W. (2023). Does Sandel Misunderstand Rawls?. Philosophia, 51(4), 1883-1905. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Zhang, Y. (2021). The idea of persons as equals and property rights (Doctoral dissertation, Hong Kong Baptist University). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Zipursky, B. C. (2023). Corrective justice theory. In Encyclopedia of the philosophy of law and social philosophy (pp. 618–625). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Financial Availability and Its Influence on Women’s Economic Empowerment in Kakamega County, Kenya
• Transformative Rural Land Governance For Gender Empowerment In Ethiopia: The Case Of Amhara Regional State Rural Land Policy
• PNP Patrol Operations: Experiences, Aspirations, and Policy Insights
• Public Policies within Mexico´S Fourth Transformation (4T) and Their Communication Strategies: Influence on University Citizenship (Mexico, 2018–2024)
• Implementation of Good Governance and Government Transformation Programs in Local Authorities: A Case Study of Kelantan, Malaysia