The theory of justice, as its name implies, is the study of justice. The concept of justice plays an important role in the history of human thought and social development. As Rawls said, justice is the first virtue of social system, just as truth is the first virtue of ideological system (section 1). Rawls regards the stipulation of justice view as the cornerstone of social development. The book A Theory of Justice is divided into three parts and nine chapters. The first part "Theory" discusses the definition, historical development, function, connotation and original state of justice. The second part "system" analyzes how to use the principle of justice determined in the first part to analyze the social and political system, economic system and civil life, which involves the specific level of people's social life. Here, the social and practical significance of Rawls' highly speculative view of justice is embodied in detail, as well as his solutions to contradictions, conflicts and civil strife in western society as a scholar. The third part "Purpose" discusses the topics in the field of ethics, involving a series of topics such as kindness, self-esteem, virtue, sense of justice, moral emotion, self-discipline and so on. This part is different from the first two parts, and the discussion and analysis seem to be slightly alienated from his principle of justice. In fact, Rawls thinks this part is very important, and if the last part of the argument is not considered, the theory of justice will be misunderstood (preface). Indeed, if a just principle wants to prevail in a society, the key lies in whether people can accept and believe it, which involves the formation of moral psychology and sense of justice. If people don't have a just psychological atmosphere and cultural environment, a just principle can't be accepted, which is what Rawls said: "Justice is the relative stability of fairness". Although the content of this part is not as novel as the first two parts, it is indispensable in the whole theory.

Justice has always been a concept of value, and there are different opinions. In the earliest written records, justice refers to equality and justice in a general sense, including all virtues and sound moral behavior patterns. Later, justice was gradually distinguished from equality and charity. However, the concept of justice is still a broad concept and different thinkers have made different definitions. For example, Plato put forward in the Republic that justice means that people from all walks of life perform their duties, keep order and get their place. Aristotle believes that equality is justice, but justice can be divided into "equal amount" and "equal proportion". The former refers to average justice, that is, everyone's income between equal individuals is equal in quantity and ability, while the latter refers to distributive justice, that is, things commensurate with it are distributed among unequal individuals according to their different values. Hume believes that public welfare is the only source of justice. Mill concluded that justice is some moral rules about the basic welfare of mankind, and so on. In the contemporary world, justice is still the center of debate, especially in the era of rapid social development, prominent contradictions and great social changes. Rawls is keen to intervene in the dispute of justice, not out of pure academic preference, but in response to the call of society. The debate about justice is not caused by people's subjective feelings, but because there are a lot of injustices in modern society. In the western society with highly developed science and technology, injustice has not been solved because of economic prosperity, but has become more and more prominent and has become the source of endless social contradictions. It is in this atmosphere that Rawls devoted himself to the study of righteousness, and his intention is obvious. If a theory of justice is only a purely academic product, it will never cause such a great sensation.

Rawls is well aware of this. At the beginning, he said that the theme of justice is the basic structure of society, or more accurately, it is the main social system that allocates basic rights and obligations and determines the distribution mode of benefits generated by social cooperation (Section II). Rawls divided the existing theories of justice that dominated western society into two categories: (1) utilitarian view of justice. Rawls summarized it as follows: if the arrangement of the main social system obtains the maximum net difference that all social members always meet, then this society is a well-organized society and therefore a just society (Section 5). The basic view of utilitarianism is to seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. The idea of utilitarianism is that when everyone realizes his own interests, he will measure his own losses according to his own gains. Social happiness consists of personal happiness. The principle of individuals is to maximize their own welfare and satisfy their own desires, while the principle of society is to maximize the welfare of groups and the desires of all members. (2) intuitive view of justice (section 7). Intuitionism does not think about problems from the gain or loss of individuals or groups, but achieves some basic principles through self-reflection, which are supreme. It can be used to measure various conflicting principles of justice. Intuitionism does not include other measurement methods. People rely on intuition and what is closest to the right thing in people's eyes. Intuitionism emphasizes the complexity of moral facts, which often makes people unable to

In explaining people's judgments, intuitionism holds that "there is no higher presumption standard to determine the appropriate focus of different principles of justice." There are obvious differences between these two views of justice: one is based on utilitarianism and the other is based on intuition.

Rawls disagrees with these two views. But he is particularly opposed to utilitarianism. He believes that in many theories of modern moral philosophy, some form of utilitarianism has always prevailed. Moral philosophy is one of the foundations of social ideal life mode. Without changing the dominant moral philosophy of a society, it is impossible to change various systems of this society. From this perspective, Rawls took the utilitarian view of justice as the object of criticism. In fact, the utilitarian ideas spread by Hume, Bentham, Adam Smith and Mill have always occupied a dominant position in western society, and these ideas and principles have laid the foundation of western political system, social system and economic system. However, these systems have not overcome the profound contradictions in society. Rawls is a reformist. He believes that the key to improving the western social system lies in changing the dominant utilitarian view of justice. This is the goal that Rawls set for himself.

Rawls is convinced that the utilitarian view of justice has several drawbacks: (1) it does not reveal the principle difference between the requirements of freedom and rights and the desire for growth of social welfare, it does not affirm the priority principle of justice, it is justified to deny the greater interests of some people and deprive others of their freedom, and political transactions and social interests cannot be the reasons to hinder basic rights; (2) It assumes that the adjustment principle of a human society is only an extension of the principle of personal choice, which is not enough. Here, the principle agreed by people is not regarded as the basis of justice, and its principle content cannot be the macro standard to regulate all people; (3) It is teleology, which explains the theory of justice by maximizing goodness, while the true principle of justice is set in advance, and it is impossible to see whether it is just from the results; (4) I think that the satisfaction of any desire is valuable in itself, and I don't distinguish the nature of these desires. I don't ask the source and nature of these gratifications and what impact they will have on happiness, such as how to treat people's behavior of getting happiness by discriminating against each other or damaging the freedom of others in order to improve their dignity (Section 6). It directly criticizes utilitarianism and indirectly criticizes various unfair phenomena in western society, such as uneven distribution, supremacy of desire, racial discrimination, poverty and so on.

Since the utilitarian view of justice is not enough and there are many mistakes, what kind of view of justice should be established? Rawls' point of view is very clear: "What I want to do is to summarize the traditional social contract theory represented by Locke, Rousseau and Kant and raise it to a higher level." Therefore, Rawls is based on the traditional contract theory method. Contract theory has a long history in the west, and some modern ideas are contract theorists, such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and others. Their contract thought once played a shocking role in western history, but later the times changed and the contract theory gave way to utilitarianism. It can be said that contract theory represents a kind of political radicalism, while utilitarianism means an idea of economic interests. After the establishment of the capitalist system, it is not surprising that utilitarianism takes the contract theory instead. Rawls once again raised the banner of contract theory, which in itself is a unique opportunity.

Rawls' theory of justice, in a word, can be called the theory that justice is fairness. To get the principle of this theory, we need to explain a premise first, that is, how the social contract came into being. A reasonable or logical assumption must be made here. Rawls called this hypothetical environment "original state", which is equivalent to the position of natural state in the ideological system of Rousseau, Locke and others.

Primitive state is purely a rational hypothesis, which cannot be demonstrated in actual history. Rawls knows this. He said that the original state is a purely hypothetical state (section 20). In the process of defining the concept of justice, Rawls often relies partly on intuitionism. He said that the intuitive view that justice is fairness will regard the principle of justice as the goal of the original contract reached in an appropriately specified original state (section 20). The design intention of primitive state is to exclude all kinds of historical and realistic factors, give people a state of pure logical thinking and make people produce the principle of justice. In the primitive state, all parties are moral subjects and treat them equally. The result of their choice does not depend on random accidents or the relative balance of social forces. But the original state alone is not enough to realize the first principle of justice, and other conditions must be set.

In order to set the original state, Rawls further put forward several core concepts: (1) just environment. In this environment, human cooperation is possible and necessary. Objective conditions include a certain geographical area, similar physical condition and mental state, and moderate deficiency. Subjective conditions include that all parties have roughly similar needs and interests, all parties have their own life plans, and there are differences in philosophy, religious beliefs, politics and social theories, so people have both cooperation and conflicts, so some principles are needed to guide people to decide the division of interests (Section 22). (2) Formal restrictions on the concept of justice. People in the primitive state have to accept certain restrictions, so that they can effectively determine and choose principles. These limitations are that principles should be general in nature, not specific, and the first principle must be able to serve as a blueprint for an orderly society. In application, principles should work for everyone with moral personality, restrictive conditions should be made public, and everyone should know that various conflicting requirements should be given a priority. Finally, the principles derived from the original state should be decisive, and there is no higher standard on them (Section 23). The nature of the principle of justice is defined here; (3) The veil of ignorance. This concept is a bolder assumption, so that the concept of pure procedural justice can be applied. Primitive state is a hypothesis, which requires people to get rid of all kinds of feelings and understandings at present, draw a curtain in front of the real society, and make people think about the principle of justice from scratch. Veil of ignorance assumes that no one knows his position, class background, natural qualifications, natural ability, rationality and strength in society, nor his idea of goodness, reasonable life planning and psychological characteristics, nor does anyone know the economic or political situation of this society. Because everyone's social status, conditions or personal temperament will affect a person's judgment on the principle of justice, they must be separated by the veil of ignorance, so as to establish the original state (section 24) and (4) the rationality of reasoning. There is also a crucial condition for the success of the original state method, which is to assume that people in the original state are rational. The so-called rationality means that people try their best to advance their own interests when choosing principles. Their choices are often related, and they also have the ability to establish a sense of justice. They try their best to get the highest possible absolute score, regardless of each other's gains and losses (section 25). Of course, such people are also theoretically hypothetical people, not people in real life. People in real life, such as secular desires, are restricted by social and various background factors and cannot act as Rawls assumes in theory. The above four conditions determine the basic attributes of the original state, from which the principle of justice can be deduced.

Until the principle of justice is achieved. We must also solve the problem of how people realize the principle of justice. Rawls first established a premise: all parties in the original state are equal, and in the process of choice, everyone has the same rights as the moral subject; People who have their own ideas about goodness are equal to those who have a sense of justice. It is under this condition that people decide the principle of justice (section 4). According to the original state and various conditions, Rawls deduced the general expression of the principle of justice:

All social values-freedom and opportunity, income and wealth, and the basis of self-esteem-should be distributed equally, unless any unequal distribution of values is beneficial to everyone (section 1 1).

This universal view of justice can be divided into two levels, namely Rawls' two most famous principles of justice:

First, everyone has equal rights and the widest range of basic freedoms, and can coexist with similar freedom rights of others.

Second, the arrangement of social and economic inequality should make this inequality not only (1) can reasonably be expected to meet everyone's interests; And (2) it is associated with a state and location that is open to all (Section 1 1).

These two principles of justice are compatible with Rawls' basic social structure. The first principle is used to determine and guarantee the equality and freedom of citizens, and the second principle is used to stipulate and establish social and economic inequality. The first principle, including citizens' basic freedoms, is no different from western traditional values. The most controversial is the second principle, which generally applies to the distribution of income and wealth, because the distribution of wealth and income in society is often unequal, but this unequal distribution should be beneficial to everyone, so people open their power status to everyone to implement the second principle. The second principle is controversial, because under the condition of private ownership, the distribution of wealth and income is absolutely unequal, so how can the principle of equality be realized? In essence, Rawls' focus is here, and so is the theoretical starting point of his reformism.

After defining these two principles of justice, Rawls incorporated them into the basic social structure. Rawls interprets society as a mutually beneficial cooperative enterprise, and its basic structure is a public rule system, which stipulates an activity design so that people can act together to produce a greater number of benefits. And allocate some recognized rights to everyone according to the share of income (section 14). How to make the principle of justice evolve into a concrete system, Rawls put forward "the order of four stages" (section 3 1). In the first stage, people accept the choice of two principles of justice; In the second stage, a constitutional convention was held to determine the fairness of the political structure, select the constitution and establish the system. This stage is mainly to determine equal civil rights and various freedoms; The third stage is the legislative stage, in which the principle of second justice plays a major role; The fourth stage is the concrete application stage of norms. Judges and administrative officials apply the formulated norms to specific affairs, while citizens generally follow the norms. In this part, Rawls also deeply discusses the concept of freedom, equality and freedom of conscience, tolerance and common interests, political justice and constitution, participation principle, rule of law and provisions on freedom priority, and clearly shows his ideal political system and social system. After this discussion, he reiterated the first principle:

The first principle: everyone should enjoy the most extensive, comprehensive and equal basic freedom, which is consistent with the similar freedom enjoyed by everyone.

Priority rule: the principle of justice should be arranged in lexical order, so the right of freedom can only be restricted for the sake of freedom itself. There are two situations here: (1) Less extensive freedom should strengthen the general system of freedom enjoyed by everyone, and (2) unequal freedom must be acceptable to those citizens who enjoy less freedom (Section 39).

Rawls used this abstract standard to judge the modern western democratic system, and he was critical. He said that one of the main shortcomings of constitutionalism is that it cannot ensure the fair value of political freedom and has not taken any corrective measures against this phenomenon. The disparity in the distribution of property and wealth far exceeds the degree of coexistence with political freedom, but it is tolerated by the law. This defect is that the democratic political process is only a controlled competition at best, and the unfair influence in the political system is much more serious than the defect of the market. Political power accumulates and becomes unequal. Those who benefit from it use the compulsory tools of the state and national laws to ensure themselves. Inequality in economic and social systems has quickly destroyed any political equality, and universal suffrage is not enough to offset this inequality. As long as political parties and elections are funded by private donations, political forums will be controlled by the dominant forces (section 36). Rawls pointed out the basic defects of western democratic politics, but he did not make a deeper analysis. When discussing the second principle, this tendency of value reformism is more obvious.

The first principle is determined to take precedence over the second principle. According to Rawls, these two principles of justice are arranged according to "lexical sequence", that is, only after the first principle is satisfied can the second principle be satisfied (section 8). In fact, because the first principle has been discussed, Rawls did not make any creative elaboration. He made great efforts to demonstrate the second principle. When discussing the second principle, he put forward several arguments: (1) anti-efficiency principle. In distribution, the principle of efficiency does not include the principle of justice, so it may be efficient for a person to get the distribution of all products or other unequal distribution methods. Therefore, it is impossible to be just by relying solely on the principle of efficiency. We should look for a utilitarian and fair distribution method that transcends the simple utilitarian concept (section 12); (2) the principle of difference. The principle of difference judges the inequality in the basic social structure by picking out a special position, which will overcome the uncertainty of the principle of utility. If entrepreneurs have better prospects than unskilled workers, assuming they are in the initial state, how can the existence of differences be justified? It must be that these differences are beneficial to the unfortunate. The existence of any difference should be beneficial to the disadvantaged and those who benefit the least; This principle has aroused heated debate, because if this principle is to be implemented, it means a thorough transformation of the western system, and some people even call it a "socialist" transformation; (3) Chain relationship. It is believed that if an interest raises the expectations of people at the bottom, it will also raise the expectations of people at all other levels. When the most vulnerable people benefit, the middle people will also benefit. When the principle of justice is realized, this chain relationship is realized. After these three arguments, Rawls specifically expressed the second principle as follows:

The arrangement of social and economic inequality should make this inequality not only (1) conform to the best interests of the most vulnerable people, but also (2) link it with positions and positions open to all on the basis of fairness and equal opportunities (section 13).

The principle of difference contains some egalitarianism and also reflects some tendencies of liberalism, the most basic of which is "the tendency of equality" (section 17). The principle of difference refers to the principle of (1) compensation. That is, the inequality of birth and talent should be compensated, and the principle of difference is not equal to the principle of compensation, but it tries to achieve the purpose of the principle of compensation; (2) The concept of reciprocity. The difference principle is the principle of pursuing mutual benefit; (3) the principle of fraternity. In western society, compared with freedom and equality, fraternity is in a secondary position. The principle of difference shows a kind of folk friendship and social unity. These are some idealistic principles. Rawls thinks that western society has not realized these principles, or has not developed in this direction.

In order to point out the direction of western social improvement, Rawls focuses on the social and economic system in the fifth chapter. He first defined the "background system of distributive justice", which includes: (1) distribution departments. Responsible for maintaining the competitiveness of the price system; (2) stable departments. Responsible for achieving reasonable full employment; (3) Distribution department. Responsible for maintaining the minimum social security; (4) the issuing department. Responsible for maintaining the overall fairness of the distribution share through taxation and necessary property rights adjustment (Section 43). Society realizes the principle of justice by regulating the activities of these four departments.

After a comprehensive investigation of the political and economic systems, Rawls completely stated two principles of justice (section 46):

The first principle of justice: everyone should have equal rights to enjoy the most extensive and equal basic freedom, which is consistent with the similar freedom system enjoyed by everyone.

The second principle of justice: the arrangement of social and economic inequality should make them (1) conform to the best interests of the most vulnerable people, conform to the principle of just saving, and (2) be linked with official positions and positions open to all under the conditions of fairness and equal opportunities.

The first priority rule (freedom first): the principle of justice should be arranged in lexical order, so freedom can only be restricted for freedom itself. There are two situations here. (1) The less extensive freedom rights should strengthen the general system of freedom rights enjoyed by everyone; (2) Unequal freedom must be acceptable to people with less freedom.

The second priority rule (justice takes precedence over efficiency and welfare): the second justice principle takes precedence over the efficiency principle and the principle of maximizing the total amount of interests in the vocabulary sequence; And fair opportunity takes precedence over the principle of difference. There are two situations here: (1) the inequality of opportunities will inevitably expand the opportunities of people with few opportunities; (2) Excessive savings rate can reduce the burden of those who suffer from it.

General concept: (see above).

At this point, Rawls' theory of justice has a general outline. As mentioned above, Rawls' whole theory of justice is reformist, that is, he wants to make some amendments to the capitalist system to ease and coordinate the increasingly fierce social conflicts. In A Theory of Justice, he repeatedly stated that the two principles of justice provide an ideal basic social structure or outline, and the reform process should develop in this direction (section 4 1). However, Rawls did not directly discuss practical problems, but put the principle of justice and its extension under hypothetical conditions and refined it to a highly speculative level. In fact, the more abstract the theory, the greater the connotation. Justice principle, freedom priority, criticism of utilitarianism, difference principle, concept of freedom, distribution share, intergenerational justice, principle of natural obligation, non-violent resistance and equality foundation are all closely related to the complex contradictions and conflicts in real life in the United States and even in the West. Rawls himself did not spend too much ink to describe these scenes in his book, but turned all the realities into rational concepts, which made it difficult for people to better understand his theory. Therefore, it is necessary to review the history of the United States for nearly 30 years in order to truly understand his theory.

Rawls's Justice is Fairness was published in 1958, and The Theory of Justice was written in 197 1. These years are the times of change in American society. The contradictions and conflicts inherent in capitalist society are one after another. Economic crisis, inflation, racial discrimination, civil rights movement, feminist movement, poverty, anti-Vietnamese wave, student rebellion, one after another. This will undoubtedly cause people to reflect on social justice. Rawls is in such an era, seriously thinking and observing these phenomena, and pinning his hope of getting out of the predicament on the clarification of the concept of justice. This is naturally an overly pedantic idea, but he has made considerable efforts. It must be pointed out that Rawls is only a reformist, and his purpose is to improve capitalism within its existing scope, not to change it. Rawls' main purpose is to promote social change by replacing the utilitarian concept of justice with the concept of justice as fairness. His attention focused on two main issues: civil rights and poverty. These two problems have not been solved for a long time in American society, which is determined by the basic structure of capitalist society. His thought of giving priority to freedom, considering the interests of the least beneficiaries, equality and freedom is also to find a way out for these problems. As Rawls said, there are still power groups in political life, there is still a huge distribution gap in economic life, homeless people in street stations still pose the biggest challenge to the system, and the social status of blacks is still worrying ... These problems also constitute a social condition for the popularity of justice theory. As long as these problems exist, the discussion on solving them will not end.

Rawls belittles the utilitarian view of justice and advocates the theory that justice is fairness, which has the following background; After the 1960s, a debate broke out between the United States and western society-the debate between neoconservatism and liberalism. The concepts of equality and freedom are considered to be two less harmonious values in modern society. Neo-conservatism insists that freedom is the core value of western society, and overemphasizing equality will hinder the realization of freedom. Liberals overemphasize equality, which not only causes various crises to society, but also infringes on human freedom. Liberals, on the other hand, believe that only by emphasizing equality can human freedom be guaranteed. Otherwise, the unequal distribution of political and economic resources will inevitably infringe on the freedom of some people. This argument is protracted and represents different forces in society. It can be seen that Rawls tried to coordinate equality and freedom. His first principle emphasizes freedom and his second principle emphasizes equality. However, his general tendency is to emphasize equality. Because this argument has institutional roots, Rawls' mediation efforts are difficult to succeed. If we look deeply, it is not difficult to find that these two principles of justice are not harmonious, and even mutually exclusive to some extent. This also makes Rawls' theory actually unable to produce the social effect he hoped. This is why a theory of justice has been criticized from two aspects. Rawls' critics put forward various viewpoints, such as: there is no reason to think that the principle of justice is superior to all utilitarian considerations, the veil of ignorance is completely artificial, it is unreasonable that political rights are absolutely superior to socio-economic rights, and the second principle is absolutely unreasonable, and so on. I am afraid that under the existing basic social structure in the United States, the theory that justice is fairness is difficult to be accepted, at least it is difficult to be fully accepted, and therefore it is difficult to achieve the purpose of reformism.

The two principles of justice are full of idealism and moralism. The emergence of the concept of justice needs objective material conditions and cannot be created out of thin air. Without mature social conditions, there is no way to change the concept of justice. Under the western system, the two principles of justice have no such foundation. Rawls saw this. He put the foundation of justice on personal moral value, self-discipline, self-unity and consistency, but failed to find an objective basis. The whole third part is for this purpose. Rawls said that he would use the theory of justice based on individualism to explain social values and the inherent goodness in institutions, associations and communication activities (section 4 1). The choice of the principle of justice makes people have a sense of justice and moral emotion, which is the condition for the principle of justice to last. This becomes a mutually causal moral argument. Rawls also attached great importance to acquiring people's "ability of moral personality" (section 77). This seems to put the realization of the principle of justice on the sublimation of human morality. However, people's morality and sense of justice are restricted by social conditions. Moral innovation is impossible without innovation in social conditions. Historical movement sometimes shows the interaction between morality and history, but relying solely on morality is probably an incomplete theory.

This defect of Rawls' theory is also manifested in his belief in changing reality with ideas. Throughout Rawls' theory, he thinks that a perfect view of justice can reform the social system, and hardly mentions the decisive role of people's material life style and production mode. Historical materialism emphasizes the restrictive effect of material conditions or social existence on social consciousness, but ignores this point. It is unrealistic to change society. Of course. Thought is not useless, but it should be combined with the development of material life. Perhaps Rawls saw the difficulty of changing these conditions, so he hoped for the sublimation of people's inner morality. At the end of the book, he said: "the purity of the mind (if it can be realized) will enable a person to see through the details and ... act rationally and exercise self-restraint." (Verse 87) Can people get a pure mind? This simple question reveals some doubts that Rawls himself may have.

A Theory of Justice is a book with rich academic content and difficult speculation. It not only reflects the main issues debated in western academic circles in recent 20 years, but also profoundly reflects the internal contradictions in western society, providing an excellent document for readers to think about justice. Therefore, we should thank Mr. Xie Tingguang for his hard translation of this book and Shanghai Translation Publishing House for publishing this book.