Krasemann - Blog Post 4

 

John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice makes me consider the similarities and differences between Rawls’ and Cheryl Harris’ viewpoints. Rawls implicitly addresses issues that Harris explicitly explores. Rawls admits that “what is just and unjust is usually in dispute” (Rawls 6). Harris would agree, but she would also point out that the ones continuing to make the decision, the whites, are on the winning side of history. Social institutions, which involve legal protection, have a great influence over rights. Both authors mention this, but Harris really dives into it.

 

It is interesting to consider that justice depends on “how fundamental rights and duties are assigned” (7). To Harris, these rights have been assigned based on skin color for the past centuries. Social cooperation drives the system of justice, even if the cooperation is unfortunately in the favor of a particular race. Distribute justice, as Rawls discusses, must take into consideration inequalities, but is that really sufficient? Rawls states that “the principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance” (9). I believe Harris would agree with this because society shows much ignorance based on historical events and proceedings. The principles of justice are “arising from an original agreement in a situation of equity” (13). I find it difficult to believe, and I think Harris would agree, that this equity pertains to racial equity.

 

Rawls talks about the “equality of opportunity”, which seems difficult to agree with given the severe contrast in opportunity for many people (54). Rawls seems to argue that inequality is alright if it benefits everyone, but this seems like a somewhat utilitarian statement. Still, would Harris agree overall with Rawls? Rawls states that “what is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts”, or that people are born into society at some particular position (87). I believe this relates very well to Harris’ argument of whiteness, for the manner in which institutions have facilitated and protected whiteness as property is incredibly unjust.

 

Although not entirely relevant, Rawls’ discussion and critique of utilitarianism makes me question how a utilitarian would view Harris’ argument? Is the inequality acceptable for the better good of the people, or is there a more just solution? The utilitarian argument surrounding what is ‘good’ is an intriguing one, for it does not define what truly is ‘good’. Rather, goodness is simply what maximizes satisfaction. But what if this comes at the hands of discriminating against other people, especially based on skin color?