Revision summary
Rawls rebuilds the social contract as a choice of principles behind a veil of ignorance. The liberal side is equal basic liberties with lexical priority, plus respect for persons as ends rather than a utilitarian aggregate. The egalitarian side is fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle, which permits inequality only if it benefits the least advantaged. Political Liberalism later seeks an overlapping consensus among reasonable doctrines without a state religion of the good. Nozick, Cohen, Sen, and Dworkin attack or extend the hybrid, which shows that justice as fairness is both liberal and egalitarian by design.
Model answer
Introduction
John Rawls in A Theory of Justice (1971) rebuilt social-contract theory for a society of free and equal persons. He used liberal tools — rights, the priority of liberty, a hypothetical agreement — to reach egalitarian principles that Nozick would later reject as patterned redistribution. The theory is liberal and egalitarian at once, which is the point of the question.
Body
The liberal architecture
Rawls asks what principles persons would choose in an original position behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing their class, talent, sex, or conception of the good. This is liberalism’s respect for persons as ends, in a Kantian register, without imposing one religious or perfectionist doctrine. The first principle is equal basic liberties: conscience, association, political liberty, the rule of law. These liberties have lexical priority. They are not to be traded for economic advantage, which is Rawls’s answer to a crude utilitarianism that might sacrifice a minority’s rights for aggregate welfare.
The priority of the right over the good, later restated in Political Liberalism as an overlapping consensus among reasonable comprehensive doctrines, keeps the state from becoming a church. Isaiah Berlin’s fear of a single positive liberty is met by protecting a scheme of equal liberties rather than one official flourishing.
The egalitarian architecture
Persons in the original position would not stop at formal liberty. They would insist on fair equality of opportunity: offices and schools open not only in law but in social fact, against a caste of birth. They would then choose the difference principle: social and economic inequalities are allowed only if they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, attached to offices open to all.
This is egalitarian because the benchmark is those who fare worst, and still liberal because inequality may remain if it raises the floor. Nozick attacks entitlement; Cohen says Rawls is too soft on the talented; Sen and Dworkin press on capabilities and resources. The hybrid is the design. Indian rights plus directive principles are a cousin, not a copy.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD OP[Original position / veil] --> L[Equal basic liberties] OP --> E[Fair opportunity] OP --> D[Difference principle] L --> LIB[Liberal priority of right] E --> EG[Egalitarian floor] D --> EG
Conclusion
Rawls used a liberal original position and the priority of equal liberties to justify an egalitarian pair of principles: fair opportunity and the difference principle. Justice as fairness is therefore not a compromise pasted together after the fact. It is one design in which liberal respect for persons generates a duty to those who would otherwise be left at the bottom.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Rawls' idea of the 'liberal self' is too individualistic. Explain, in this context, the communitarian critique of Rawls' theory of justice
Next question on this syllabus topic (2023 · Q2(b)). View answer →
-
Is Rawls a socialist?
He allows a property-owning democracy or liberal socialism as regimes compatible with his principles. He is not committed to Marx’s classless end-state.
-
How is this egalitarian if inequalities remain?
Inequalities remain only as a justified remainder that raises the worst-off. Formal equal liberty without that test would be liberalism without fairness.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2023 · Q2(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Rawls' idea of the 'liberal self' is too individualistic. Explain, in this context, the communitarian critique of Rawls' theory of justice -
2022 · Q4(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Ambedkar's idea of social justice leads to 'egalitarian justice' as compared to Rawls' 'justice as fairness' which aims at the notion of 'pure procedural justice'. Comment -
2022 · Q4(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Examine the entitlement theory of justice -
2021 · Q2(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
How has Rawls enriched the idea of justice in liberalism?
More from this topic
Q2(b) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Rawls' idea of the 'liberal self' is too individualistic. Explain, in this context, the communitarian critique of Rawls' theory of justice
Justice
Rawls’s original position models persons as free and equal choosers who do not know their social identities. Sandel calls this an unencumbered self that cannot explain unchosen obligations. Walzer, MacIntyre, and Taylor add social meanings, narrative, and recognition. Political Liberalism replies that the self of justice is political, not a full metaphysics of the person. Indian group rights and Ambedkar’s civil equality show both the force and the limit of the communitarian critique.
Q4(c) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Examine the entitlement theory of justice
Justice
Nozick’s entitlement theory judges holdings by a just historical chain, not by an end-state pattern. Acquisition, voluntary transfer, and rectification are the three principles. The Chamberlain example defends inequality that arises from consent. Rectification, if honest about conquest and caste, could undo much of the theory’s conservative use. Rawls and Indian social-revolution clauses reject the minimal state that the theory prefers.
Q4(a) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Ambedkar's idea of social justice leads to 'egalitarian justice' as compared to Rawls' 'justice as fairness' which aims at the notion of 'pure procedural justice'. Comment
Justice
Rawls’s justice as fairness models pure procedural justice: a fair original position defines just shares. Ambedkar’s social justice starts from graded inequality and aims at equal status, not only a fair bet among equals. Article 17, reservations, and annihilation of caste are substantive egalitarian tools. The original position assumes moral equality that caste society denies. Indian basic structure and reservation law sit closer to Ambedkar’s end-state than to a caste-blind procedure.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.