A Study On Rawls’s Political Liberalism

In1971,"A Theory of Justice" was published, which is not only to take athorough critique on utilitarianism, but also give a new argument to liberalism. Anew kind of liberalism was elucidated, namely an egalitarian form of liberalism. Thetheory of justice led to persistent and intense academic criticism and discussion,which directly contributed to the renaissance of contemporary political philosophy.Egalitarianism won appreciation but also was criticized, including fromutilitarianism, libertarianism, perfectionism, communitarianism, republicanism,social choice theory, marxism, and feminism etc. All of these criticisms are justified,therefore, the new egalitarianism must be made double clarification, in it-self and inpublic.After "A Theory of Justice", especially in the1980s, Rawls published a series ofscholarly articles which is both a response to criticism from all sides, but also acomplement to the deficiencies. Meanwhile, these interrelated article presentedindependently significance. Until1993, being compiled and published in the form ofPolitical Liberalism, Rawls discussed a newer type of liberalism, that’s the politicalliberalism. The intension of Political liberalism is to explore the stability problemof " justice as fairness ", in this process, it needs to put forward a series of new ideas.Just basing on discourses and construction of these ideas, the theory of justice as thecomprehensive doctrine of egalitarianism turned to a independent doctrine ofpolitical liberalism. And a key factor that leads to the doctrine turning is the fact ofreasonable pluralism. This fact is not an accidental, and it is the long-term outcomeof a society’s culture in the context of these free institutions, and that’s an inevitableoutcome. Meanwhile, this fact and that everyone with an inevitable burden ofjudgment are closely related. The burdens of judgment indicate the finiteness of the individual self and their living environments, which result in the idea of reasonabledisagreement in the most fundamental level."Reasonable persons do not all affirmthe same comprehensive doctrine."One kind of comprehensive doctrine expresses a complete view of the world,organizes a coherent value system that covers the major religious, philosophical, andmoral aspects of human life. In this sense, Kant and Mill’s liberalism are a form ofcomprehensive doctrine, requiring the values of "autonomy" or "individuality" inalmost all aspects of our lives. Political liberalism as an independent doctrine doesnot depend on nor participate in any kind of comprehensive doctrines, which sets itsown criteria, principles and ideals strictly limited to the political domain, and justutilizes political values. Political liberalism is constructed from a series of ideas, andthese ideas implicit in the public political culture of a modern democratic society,including the crucial idea of society as a fair system of cooperation, as well as theidea of citizens as free and equal, reasonable and rational persons.Whether it is in the "Theory of Justice" period, or in the "Political Liberalism"period, Rawls always insists the substantive contents of justice as fairness. However,the concept of justice was treated with a different way. In the early stage, justice asfairness doctrine was seen as a kind of moral philosophy. In the late, justice asfairness was seen as a kind of political philosophy. The stability argument guides thisdoctrine turn. In the early, the stability argument points to the congruence of justiceand good. In the late, the stability argument points to overlapping consensus. Theaim of stability arguments is the feasibility of justice as fairness, in the "PoliticalLiberalism" its problem is that: How is it possible for there to exist over time a justand stable society of free and equal citizens who remain profoundly divided byreasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines? The answer is theoverlapping consensus of all kinds of comprehensive doctrines. The center of anoverlapping consensus just is the political conception of justice, which is the justiceas fairness. Thus, the stability argument of overlapping consensus is not to simplyclarify the concept, but it needs to re-interpret justice as fairness by the concept of "political" justice, and asks: What is the mean and what is the criterion. Just becauseof the requirement of stability arguments, Rawls elucidated justice as fairness as onekind of political liberalism.Another theme of Rawls’s political liberalism is legitimacy, that closely relatedto the use of political power. In Rawls’s discussion system, political power isultimately the power of the public, that is, the power of free and equal citizens as acollective body. Legitimacy points to two levels, legitimacy of the law andlegitimacy of the constitution, but in fundamental level, legitimacy just is the later,which requires explanation and proof of the constitutional essentials. In Rawls’stheory of justice, the subject of justice as fairness especially is the basic structure ofa society, which includes the constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice intwo parts, respectively corresponding to the first and the second of the two principlesof justice. The constitutional essentials specify the general structure of governmentand the political process, and also equal basic rights and liberties of citizenship.It’sargument is associated with public reason. The public reason is different fromnonpublic reasons, it limits and also is to demonstrate the argument by providing anindependent platform and resources.Legitimacy and stability are the two basic themes of Rawls’s political liberalism.Around these two themes, justice as fairness is interpreted as a political conceptionof justice. In the ’’Political Liberalism", Rawls did not specifically explain therelationship between legitimacy and stability, which are often confused with eachother. However, they are two different issues, the relationship between them needsto clarify.There is a wide variety of political liberalism, and philosopher in the sameperiod, including Judith Shikelaer, Charles Larmor, Bruce Ackerman also presentedthe idea of political liberalism and made different discourses. But Rawls’s politicalliberalism occupies a special place, is full of special significance. That’s because,between Rawls’s political liberalism and the egalitarian form of liberalism areintrinsically linked. Although the character of doctrine has changed, the substance of justice as fairness has not changed."Theory of Justice" as already demonstrated thetheoretical significance and impact of justice as fairness. Meanwhile, Rawls’spolitical liberalism is systemic and normalized, ranging the complete process oftheory development from ideas to the principles and then to purposes. And it hasindependent theoretical criteria, principles and ideals. However, while maintainingits theoretical depth Rawls’s political liberalism also felled into great complexity.The general purpose of this paper is not to prove right or wrong of Rawls’s politicalliberalism, but to clarify the structure of Rawls’s political liberalism. Perhaps thiswork will help people make more proximate understanding and take more accuratecriticisms to Rawls’s political liberalism.