CHAPTER I

1.0 Preliminaries

1.1 Introduction

Every human person wants to be in a just and well-ordered society. A society that

is tranquil, peaceful, orderly, and just. How nice it would be to live in this kind of society.

This is a reality in the life of every human person that cannot be denied. Who wants to be

in a chaotic society? For sure nobody wants to be in this kind of society. However the

quest for justice has not yet ended even up to this time. “We live in a world in search of

justice and we are surprised to find justice already in chains.”1Nowadays many people are

still suffering from injustices social, political, liberal, and economic.

Among those who suffered from injustices were the Filipinos. It is sad to imagine

but is something true for most of them. If there are injustices happening inside the society

it’s a sign that a society is not in proper order. Perhaps there is lacking element why it is

not in order. However it is impossible to call the Philippines as a well-ordered and just

society because of the fact that there are a lot of cases of injustices that is happening until

now. But what are those cases of injustices that make the Philippines as a non-well-

ordered society? Is there any hint?

Looking at the political system of the Philippine society it is democratic.

Although it’s democratic society many Filipinos find difficulty in finding where justice is

particularly the poor. What makes the Philippines not a well-ordered society? It is

because there are many corrupt leaders. This is the reason why the Philippines still

belongs to the third world country. Political and economic issues sprout left and right.

1 Ramon K. Illusario, Crisis and Paradigm: An Inquiry into the Cause of Social Breakdown and A Prescription for Future Resolution ( Manila, Philippines: Multinational Foundation Co.,Inc., 1984) Foreword

2

The Philippines today are facing various problems both politically, socially, and

economically. There are a lot of hints and facts in the Philippine society saying that it is a

non-well-ordered society. If we could still remember there seems to be no end in the war

in Mindanao between the government and the Abu Sayyaf bandits, Filipinos fighting and

killing each other. In fact, the latest news of the terrible massacre of the group of

journalists in Maguindanao by the Ampatuans is a clear manifestation that the Philippines

is not in a well-ordered society. There is no peace, politics is so dirty and corruption is

rampant even in the grassroots.

In addition looking back at the previous problems last 2009, there were the issues

concerning the rice shortage, oil price hike, electricity crisis, and rising unemployment,

the ZTE-NBN scandal, jueteng payola, and fertilizer fund scam. They weres left

unresolved. The issue on the falling income, according to the GDP per capita it shrank to

US$ in 2000 from US$1,29 in 1997 while the GNP per capita contracted to US$1,033

from US$1,97. It is the result of the survey of the Asian Financial Crisis which caught up

in the Philippines in 19198.2The Unequal Regional Development, the Asian Development

Bank (ADB) reported that Metro Manila’s per capita Gross Regional Domestic Product

(GDRP) in 2000 was more twice that than of the national average and more than five

times that of Bicol Region.3There are 5.1 Million Poor families, according to NSO survey

in 2000 and 19.9 percent of families in urban areas and 46.9 in rural areas. The number of

poor families climbed to 5.1 Million, 1.5 million of them in the urban areas and 3.6

million in rural areas. Furthermore 2.5 million families were living in subsistence level.4It

2 http://www.txtmania.com/trivia/social.php ( accessed July 18,2009)

3 Ibid.4 Ibid.

3

means that their income was not enough to buy their basic needs. According to DOLE

10.8 million Filipinos were under employed and 26 percent of College Graduate

according to Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) in 2002, 3.5 Billion Lost

to project anomalies, US$ 53.4 billion foreign debt, Philippines has 2500 Armed Rebels,

and 147 Billion Budget Shortage.5This are the facts that saying that Philippines not a

well-ordered society. There was a lot of budget from the government that was not

distributed properly for the people. Thus this is a kind of injustice among the Filipino

people. According to the Plato’s Republic justice is giving what is owed to the person.6

Thus give what is supposed for a man. However this can be considered as a hint of a non-

well-ordered society because it shows inequality among the people and it’s a kind of

injustice.

The quest for justice among the Filipinos has not yet ended because of so many

social problems that affect their lives. What is the concept of justice for the Filipinos?

Despite the fact that the Philippines is bombarded with social and political issues and

problems in the society however the question is, is there a hope in the Philippine society

to become a well-ordered? However the student researcher would like to suggest means

on the possibility of a well-ordered society in the Philippines. In this context the student-

researcher will try to attempt to apply John Rawls concept of justice to attain the so called

well-ordered society in the Philippines. But how is this concept is applicable? According

to the facts that the student researcher presented most of the issues are pertaining to

5

? Ibid.6

?Plato, Republic, trans. G.M.A.Grube, rev.ed. ( Cambridge:Hacket Publishing Company, Inc,1992 ),7.

4

inequality. Many Filipinos were not much benefitting from the society because of

anomalies among political leaders. The funds that supposed to for them were taken by the

corrupt leaders like the fertilizer scam. For sure those who were affected by this issue will

seek for justice most specially the farmers who are expecting for that fund. What kind of

justice is proper for them? What kind of justice is proper in this case?

According to John Rawls, justice is fairness and it should be the first virtue of the

society.7 But would this concept of justice possible in the Philippines? It can be possible

because Philippines is a democratic country and Rawls conception of justice focused on a

democratic society. Rawls concept of justice is political not metaphysical, because it

focuses only in the society not going beyond.8 However it can be a means and possible to

happened if this concept of justice will be applied. John Rawls concept of justice leads

the Philippines into a well ordered society.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The aim of the student researcher focuses on the study of John Rawls Theory of

Justice on how it could be applied in the Philippines in order to have a well-ordered

society. However to make this work organized the student- researcher will pose a

question that will facilitate to the flow of the discussion. The student-researcher will

focus on the following questions:

1.2.1 What is John Rawls notion of justice?

1.2.2 What is a well-ordered society according to Rawls?

7 John Rawls, Theory of Justice (New York: Harvard University and Oxford Press, 1971), 3.

8

? John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement ( Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2001) Editor’s Foreword

5

1.2.3 What is the Filipino concept of justice?

1.2.4 How does John Rawls concept of justice can lead the Philippines into a well-

ordered society?

1.2.5 What makes Rawls concept of Justice applicable in the Philippines?

Moreover these questions will serve as the backbone in the discussion of this paper.

The answers to this question will be discussed by the student-researcher on the body of

this paper.

1.3 Significance of the Study

The significance of this study is to have a clear understanding and good

presentation of John Rawls “concept of justice, and deepen the understanding of the

student-researcher of the notion of “justice” for the Filipinos. This study is important

because it talks about the social problems and hint of a non well-ordered society in the

Philippines. However this paper tries to propose a means relevant to the social problem

facing by the Philippines today. It is the hope of the student researcher to prove in this

paper that John Rawls concept of justice can be a means. Moreover this study lies on the

student-researchers attempt in using Rawls concept that will lead the Philippine society

into a well-ordered society.

1.4 Scope and Delimitation

There are many concepts of justice and it is very broad. However the student-

researcher will be specific in using the concept of justice. Thus he will focus only on

John Rawls concept of Justice. The student researcher will use the works of John Rawls

particularly his book “A Theory of Justice” and “Justice as Fairness”. There will be a

discussion on the notion of justice of the Filipinos and hints of a non-well- ordered

6

society in the Philippines. Moreover the student-researcher will mainly rely on the

question posed on the statement of the problem.

1.5 Procedural Design

The student researcher will be using the descriptive remedial approach. The point

of departure of this paper will begin to the presentation of the first chapter: statement of

the problem, significance of the study, scope and delimitation, procedural design and

review of related literature. In the second chapter the life and works of John Rawls will

be discussed as well as the major influences of John Rawls way of thinking. In the third

chapter, will dwell on John Rawls notion of justice will be elaborated and discussed.

There will be also a discussion on John Rawls concept of a well-ordered society. In the

fourth chapter the notion of justice by the Filipinos will also be discussed. Moreover in

this chapter also the student-researcher will exposed the argument on John Rawls concept

of justice applied in the Philippines. In the fifth chapter the student-researcher will

evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Rawlsian justice then afterwards he will apply it

on the Philippine context. In the last chapter the student-researcher will make the

conclusion.

1.6 Definition of Terms

1.6.1 Justice

7

-as fairness9

-the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought10

1.6.2 Society

-More or less self-sufficient associations of persons who in their relations

to one another recognize certain rules of conduct as binding and who for the most part act

accordance with them.11

1.6.3 Well-ordered Society

-It is a society in which everyone accepts and knows that the others accept

the same principle, and basic social institutions satisfy and are known to satisfy this

principle.12

1.6.4 Equality

-It is a relationship between different people. There is equality when they

are equally supplied with resources, or equally happy.13

1.6.5 Egalitarianism

-It is the view that all humans are equal and should be treated equally in

liberties, rights, respect, and opportunities. 14

1.7 Review of Related Literature

9 John Rawls, Theory of Justice (New York: Harvard University Press and Oxford University Press, 1971), xi.

10 Ibid., 3.

11 Ibid., 4.

12 Ibid., 279.

13 Dennis Mackerlie, “Equality”, Ethics: An International Journal of Social and Legal Philosophy, vol. 1 (January 1996), 274.

14 Harper-Collins Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd s.v. “Egalitarianism”

8

1.7.1 Beauchamp, Tom. Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral

Philosophy. San Francisco. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991.

In this book the author stresses the significance of justice on egalitarianism in the

light of John Rawls. However he makes an analysis on the egalitarian theory of Rawls.

He begins his analysis by summarizing, The Role of Justice”, followed by the, “Original

Position and Justification”, “Principle of Justice”, and the Tendency of Equality”.

This book is helpful to the student researcher because it gives a synthesis on how

Rawls concept of justice be easily understand.

1.7.2 Barry, Bryan, “Theory of Justice”, London. Harvester-Wheatsheaf. , 1989

This book uses John Rawls “Theory of Justice” as its framework. Some of the

concepts being used in this book are taken from the other books of Rawls. In this book

the student researcher deepen his understanding about the concept of a well-ordered

society. It can be good reference.

1.7.3 Anderson, Elizabeth, “What is the Point of Equality?” Ethics: An

International Journal of Social and Legal Philosophy. Chicago. University of Chicago

Press., July 2001

In this article Elizabeth Anderson points out what is really the point of equality

for the people and the negative and positive aim of egalitarian justice. For Anderson

egalitarianism is a necessary to have a well-ordered society. With this article the student

researcher understood that egalitarianism is necessary in the society.

1.7.4 Margalit, Avishai, “The Decent Society”, London: Harvard University

Press., 1996

The book contains the concept of what a decent society is. According to the

9

Margalit, “A decent society is one whose in situations does not humiliate people.”15 Thus

for the authors the decent society does not humiliate people itself. In this book being just

is not to humiliate other people. Moreover this book is a good source to deepen the

student researcher’s concept of a just society.

Chapter 2

2.0 General Background

2.1 Life and Works of John Rawls16

John Rawls was a well-known philosopher of the 20th century and largely known

by his Theory of Justice. He was born on February 21, 1921 in Baltimore, Maryland,

15 Avishai Margalit, The Decent Society (London: Harvard University Press., 1998), 1.

16 Samuel Freeman, Rawls (Oxon: Routledge Publication, 2007), 1-8.

10

U.S.A., from a well-to-do Baltimore family. His father is William Lee Rawls, a lawyer

from Eastern North Carolina near Greenville, and his mother Anna Abell Stump Rawls, a

president of the New League of Women Voters in Baltimore. They were five siblings in

the family and all of them are boy and he was the second. Two of his brother died at the

young age. He grew up in Baltimore where his father practiced law. It was also in

Baltimore he attended his first formal schooling. For six years studied in Calvert School

in Baltimore and spent two years at Roland Junior High. Thereafter he transferred to an

Episcopal school for boys in Kent school in Western Connecticut and graduated in 1939.

Then he continued his studies at Princeton University and completes his B.A. in

Philosophy in 1943.

After he graduated at Princeton he joined the U.S. Army in January 1943 and

there he serves as a private in the infantry. Rawls fought in the Pacific together with the

32nd Infantry Division, the “Red Arrow Division”. He spent 36-day battle in Leyte and in

New Guinea and another 120-day battle in Luzon in the Philippines. One of the most

memorable days of Rawls in the war was when he was hit by the bullet of an enemy on

his head while drinking on the stream and it leaves a scar for the rest of his life. Rawls

serve as the radio operator which is one of the most dangerous positions in the battle. He

also witnessed the bombing in Hiroshima Japan. Many friends and classmates of Rawls

were killed on the war. He finished his military service in January 1946.

After he finished his military service, he returned to Princeton University and

continues his studies for his doctorate in Philosophy. In 1949 Rawls successfully

defended his thesis. He wrote his dissertation on “Moral Knowledge and Judgment on the

Moral Worth of Character”, under W.T. Stace, a supervisor of dissertation on Moral

11

worth Moral Knowledge. And at the same year also he married Margaret Warfield of

Philadelphia a graduate from Pembroke College at Brown University. In June 1950,

Rawls received his PhD degree. From 1950 to 1952 he serve as an instructor at Princeton.

Thereafter he went to Fulbright Fellowship at Oxford and there he became a member of

High Table at Christ Church College. It was at Oxford where Rawls was influenced by

H.L.A. Hart on the Philosophy of Law and also attended seminars of Isaiah Berlin

Hampshire. In 1953 he returned to U.S, and thought at Cornell University in Ithaca, New

York and serves as an assistant professor in philosophy. There he joined his former

teacher Norman Malcolm and his former classmates in Princeton and lifelong friend

namely Roger Abirton and David Sachs.

At the age of 34 in 1957, his first book was published, Justice as Fairness. In

1962 his teaching career in Harvard starts. He thought in Harvard for almost 30 years in

fulltime position teaching every year the course “Modern Political Philosophy”. During

his teaching career in Harvard the year after, in 1963 he published “The Sense of

Justice”, which was later developed in the chapter 8 of “Theory of Justice”. Another

work was published, “The Justification of Civil Disobedience”, in 1967 which was later

revised in the “Theory of Justice”. After two years in 1971, his great masterpiece was

published, “Theory of Justice”. This masterpiece of Rawls contains his famous account

on the “Original Position”, “Veil of Ignorance”, Equal Basic Liberties”, and Difference

Principle”. The “Theory of Justice” was translated into 30 different languages and sell

over half million copies. A year after the publication of his great work in 1972, he was

awarded the,” Phi Beta Kappa Ralph Waldo Emerson Prize”.  From 1970 to 1974 Rawls

was a chairman of Harvard Philosophy Department and a President of the American

12

Philosophical Association, Eastern Division. In 1980 he gave a lecture on “Kantian

Constructivism in Moral Theory”, where he presents 3 Dewey lecture at Colombia

University. On the following year in 1981, he gave another lecture on, “The Basic

Liberties and their Priority”, where presents the “Tanner Lecture “, at the University of

Michigan.

In 1981, “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical” was published and

followed by “The Idea of Overlapping Consensus” after six years in 1987 and “Themes

in Kant’s Moral Philosophy” in 1989. Rawls retired from full-time position in 1991 at

Harvard. He thought in Harvard for 30 years. However his retirement has never become

the hindrance to continue his teaching career. After his retirement Rawls still teach until

1995 teaching the same course Modern Political Philosophy. In 1993 was “Political

Liberalism”. For the first time in October 1995 Rawls experienced his first mild stroke.

Due to this Rawls formally retired from teaching but he never stop in writing and giving

lectures. “The Idea of Public Reason” was published in 1997, then after two years,” The

Law of Peoples”, and the revised of “A Theory of Justice” was published in 1999. At the

same year Rawls was awarded a National Humanities Medal by President Clinton, and

also Rolf Shock Prize in Logic and Philosophy. In 2002 “Justice as Fairness: A

Restatement” was published. At the age of 81 on November 20, 2002 Rawls died

peacefully at home in Lexington, Massachusetts. Rawls was buried in Mt. Auburn

Cemetery, Cambridge, Massachusetts. After his sudden death five years later his

“Lectures on the History Philosophy” with lectures on Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Rousseau,

Mill, Marx, Sidgwick, and Butler was published in 2007.

13

2.2 Major Influences to Rawls Line of Thought17

Rawls was greatly influenced by the past great thinkers both in moral and political

philosophy. However it was Rousseau’s “Social Contract” that inspired Rawls of his

doctrine on the “Original Position “and on the other hand “The Convention of Justice was

of David Hume. In political Philosophy during his time in Princeton, he was influenced

and thought by the Wittgenstein’s student and philosopher of language Norman Malcom.

Moreover he was also influenced of his thesis supervisor, the Hegel scholar W.T. Stace.

Rawls was profoundly influenced by Kant. “From the idea of “the priority of right

over the good” and the Kantian interpretation of justice as fairness in A Theory of Justice,

to Kantian (and later Political) Constructivism and the personality and the distinction

between the Reasonable and Rational in Political Liberalism, and finally the rejection of

a world state and the idea of “realistic utopia” in Rawls’s Law of Peoples. One can

discern that many of Rawls main ideas were deeply influenced by his understanding of

Kant.”18Rawls interpretation of his conception of justice is grounded of Kant’s idea of

respect for person. The initial drafts of A Theory of Justice Kant had a little direct

influence in 1950s and 1960s. “The Law of Peoples” was inspired by Kant’s writings on

international justice.

Another great thinker to influence Rawls is Sidgwick. “Like Sedgwick’s criteria

for a rational method, the original position is designed to incorporate “all relevant

requirements of practical reason, (PL, 90) so that it may serve as a method of selection to

decide upon the most reasonable conception of justice from among array of

17 Ibid ., 12-28.

18 Ibid., 21.

14

alternatives.”19Moreover Rawls follow also Sedgwick’s Intuitionism and perfectionism

among the methods of ethics that is compared to utilitarianism. Furthermore, in writing

out the ideas of Theory of Justice, Hegel had a little direct influence also to Rawls. Like

Hegel, Rawls rejects the dualisms that are implicit in Kant’s transcendental philosophy.

Chapter 3

John Rawls Notion of Justice

3.1 Justice as Fairness

Justice as fairness, this is the concept of justice presented by John Rawls in his

masterpiece A Theory of Justice. But one must need to understand why justice is

conceived as fairness. What is its basis?

19 Ibid., 24.

15

“According to justice as fairness, the most reasonable principle of justice is those

that would object of mutual agreement by person under fair conditions. Justice as fairness

thus develops a theory of justice from the idea of social contract. The principles it

articulates affirm broadly liberal conception of basic rights and liberties, and only permit

inequalities in wealth and income that would be to the advantage of the least well-off.20

Justice is the most reasonable principle in this context. However it is understood

why Rawls conception of justice as fairness for the reason that in every society it cannot

be deny the fact there were always group of people who are under unfair condition.

Rawls concept on justice is basically focused on the basic rights and liberties and

inequality is permissible only on the level of wealth and income. It can be also

understood here that the conception of justice as fairness was developed from the idea of

the social contract.

More over justice as fairness is a political concept and not metaphysical.21 Thus

Rawls conception of justice is best understood in a political concept. It is political

because it only focuses on the society and not going beyond. For further understanding of

Rawls concept of justice the student researcher will discuss on the next discussion his two

principles of justice.

3.2 The Two Principles of Justice

John Rawls conception of Justice is articulated into two principles. These are the

principle of liberty and the difference principle. This is the most important part in

understanding Rawls concept of justice.

20 John Rawls , Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, edited by Erin Kelly, (London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2001), xi

21 Ibid.

16

3.2.1 Principle of Liberty

“Each person has is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal

basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties of others.”22

This is the first principle of Rawls notion of justice. It is primarily designed for

the social and economic institutions and ascribes the equal rights and liberties of all

citizens in the society. Moreover this principle stresses the significance or value of the

right and liberty of every person. When Rawls speaks of liberty he is referring

particularly from liberty of conscience, freedom of association, freedom of speech,

freedom of thought, freedom of the person including freedom of psychological

oppression, physical assault, disembarrassment or integrity of the person, the rights to

hold personal property, the rights to vote and freedom from arbitrary arrest in accordance

with the rule of the law.23 In this context it could easily be understood what principle of

liberty of Rawls is trying to say about. Moreover, the principle of liberty is not

reasonably require the unqualified granting of total liberty to each individual yet the

liberty must be constrained by the need to protect the liberty of each individual, hence a

more refined principle is adopted saying that, “each person is to have an equal right to the

most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of

liberty to all”. 24 Liberty is very important to every citizen. It is the basis if a citizen

where fully recognized in the society. Most people who find least in liberty have the

22 Rawls, A Theory of Justice, 53.

23 Ibid.

24 Samuel Gorovitz, “John Rawls: A Theory of Justice”, Contemporary Political Philosophers, edited by Anthony de Cerspigny and Kenneth Minogue (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1975), 280.

17

possibility to revolt against the society. Liberty is the voice of the people in the society.

Without liberty man finds himself as an outcast in the society. In this principle basic

rights and liberty is the first priority.

3.2.2 The Difference Principle

“Social and economic inequalities are to arranged so that they are both (a)

reasonably expected to be everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and

offices open to all.”25 This principle is meant to be the greatest benefit of the least

advantage of the society. However this principle has two parts. The first part is

“reasonably expected to everyone’s advantage or the so called fair opportunity.”26

It requires that all citizens having the same talent and willingness to use them to

have the same education and economic opportunities regardless whether they are born

poor or rich.27 It means that those persons who have skills in different kinds of work must

need to teach the illiterate in order to have the same skill with them. For example, the

ability to write and read, not all has the ability to write and read. In order for them to

learn how to read and write they need a teacher to teach. In sharing ones’ knowledge

someone must be generous enough in sharing all the knowledge one has and this

generous sharer must be the teacher, a competitive authority. Obviously, the students are

the receiver of knowledge shared by the teacher. Every human person is part of the

society. Being part of the society he has the right to learn and be educated in the society

because this includes on the basic rights of every citizen.

25

? Ibid.

26 Ibid.27 http://plato.stanford.edu.edu/entries/rawls (Accessed November 11, 2009)

18

Moreover, the second part of the second principle is “attached to positions and

offices open to all.”28This second part speaks of the arrangement of social institutions in

order for inequalities and income work to the advantage worst off.29 In this part inequality

is permissible for the reason that wealth and income depends on the skill of every person.

Similarly, all the members of soccer team for example, the privilege of being in the team.

However, within this team each individual player has their own distinctive function for

the proper organization of the team when they are in game. A striker for example cannot

be a defender at the same time. The role of the striker should not go over the boundaries

of his part in order for him to focus on his job as a striker and let also the defender fulfill

his task as a defender. In this analogy it is understood that every member of the team

enjoy and have the privilege to play but each individual have its own position. Similarly

in the society each individual has the privilege to work in the society but the income or

wages of every individual is not the same because of the fact that their wages depends on

their work. In this principle it is understood how important to be attached in any

opportunities that can be find in the society. The privilege to be employed in social

institutions is not only for the rich and the middle class in the society but it’s for

everybody.

.3.2 Justice as First Virtue of Social Institutions

Virtue is intrinsically in the mind of man. So much so he always seeks and desires

the good. Justice in the words of Rawls is the key element in achieving social justice

system, in his book A Theory of Justice he said, Justice is the first virtue of social

28 Ibid 29

? Ibid.

19

institutions, as truths is of systems of thought.”30Thus it is the virtue mothering of all

other virtues in the society. Implicitly Rawls would like to say that justice is never

learned just by reading it but rather it is learned by doing and applying it. So much so that

in a society in order to judge it as just society the equal citizenship must be settled. As

John Rawls puts it:

Throughout I considered only as virtue of social institution, or what shall call practice. The principles of justice are regarded as formulating restrictions as to how practices may define positions and offices and assign thereto powers and liabilities, rights and duties. Justice as a virtue of particular actions of person I do not take up it all. It is important to distinguish these various subject of justice, since the meaning of the concept varies according to whether it’s applied to practices, particular actions, or person. These meanings are indeed, connected but they are not identical. I shall confine my discussion to the sense of justice as applied to practices, since this sense is the basic one. Once it is understood, the other senses should go quietly easy. 31

Moreover justice plays a very important role in every social institution. It is

however established for the common good of every people living and working inside the

society. So much so for a man who loves his virtue he will always practice it in order to

become a person he wants to be. It is similar also to the society justice as the first virtue

as Rawls would call it must be practiced in every social institution in order for it to

become a just society.

3.3 Subject of Justice

In this section the researcher will present the subject of justice which is one of the

necessary elements in this study. Justice can be applied in different aspects of life.

Further, people have different interpretation and understanding of it. However, in this

30 Rawls, A Theory of Justice,3

31 Robert C. Solomon, Introducing Philosophy: A Text with Integrated Readings (New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1997), 617-618.

20

case the subject of justice that the researcher is referring is the basic structure of the

society. John Rawls believes that the subject of justice is the basic structure of the

society as he puts it:

The basic structure of society consists of the arrangement of the political, social, and economic institutions that make social cooperation possible and productive. These institutions have a profound influence on individuals’ everyday lives, their characters, desires, and ambitions, as well as their future prospects. The basic institutions that are part of the basic structure include, first, the political constitution and the resulting from of government and legal system that it supports, including the system of trials and other legal procedures; second, the system of property, whether public or private, that must exist in any society to specify who has exclusive rights to and responsibilities for the use of goods and resources. The system of property specifies the rights, powers, and duties that individuals and groups have with respect to the use and enjoyment of resources and other thing; third, the system of markets and other means of transfer and disposal of economic goods, and more generally the structure and norms of the economic system of production, transfer, and distribution of goods and resources among individuals; and fourth, the family in some form which from a political perspective is the primary mechanism any society must have for the raising and education of children and thus the reproduction of society overtime.32

The subject of justice is primarily the rights of every people and the basic structure of the

society. The reason why the subject of justice is the basic structure of the society is

because justice according to Rawls has a profound effect in the society.33 Thus justice in

this way must always apply in every structure of social institution of the society. The

entire focus of justice is basically on the political and social justice. Moreover Rawls

conception of justice starts from the special case of basic structure.34 Since it begins from

the special case of basic structure it became the subject of his conception his concept of

justice.

32 Freeman, Rawls, 101.

33 Ibid., 7

34 Rawls, Justice as Fairness, 10.

21

3.4 Rawls view on a Well-ordered Society

Rawls viewed society as “more or less self-sufficient associations of persons who

in their relations to one another recognize certain rules of conduct as binding and who for

the most part act accordance with them.”35 A well-ordered is an ideal society for every

human person. However Rawls has his own view of what a well-ordered society is.

Rawls characterized well-ordered “as one design to advance the good of its members and

effectively regulated by a public conception of justice. Thus it is a society in which

everyone accepts and knows that the others accept the same principles of justice, and the

basic social institutions satisfy and are known to satisfy these principles.”36This is how

Rawls viewed and characterized what a well-ordered society is. Moreover this concept on

view of Rawls of a well-ordered society is very egalitarian, because the basis of justice

practically pertains on the equality of all citizens in the society.

It is evident that Rawls conception of justice is framed in this idea of a well-

ordered society. So much so Rawls conception of justice must be justified by the

condition of human life.37 A well ordered-society according to Rawls is regulated by its

public conception of justice. Since it is regulated by its public condition people got the

courage desire in the society as what did the principle required.38 With the two principle

of justice presented by Rawls it is understood that man should be treated equally in the

society according to their basic rights. In a well-ordered society this kind of treatment is

35 Rawls , Theory of Justice, 1136

? Ibid., 397.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid., 397-398

22

practiced. However for further understanding of Rawls concept of a well-ordered society

on the next discussion egalitarianism will be discussed on the next section.

3.4.1 Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism is one of the most important elements in Rawls view of a well-

ordered. To understand more Rawls view on a well-ordered society it is necessary to

understand what egalitarianism is. “Egalitarianism, the view that all men and women are

equally just by virtue of their being human is a position that must be urged and is not a

”natural” state affairs or a belief that was always accepted by everyone.”39Thus

egalitarianism basically lies on the concept of equality. These concepts basically advocate

the equality between men and women. Sometimes people always say that men cannot be

equated to women. It is because the first impressions to women are weak. However this

concept argues that men and women are equal and the only thing that makes man distinct

from one another is on the gender.

Egalitarianism is powerfully represented in John Rawls view of a well-ordered

society. Indeed a society that used to practice egalitarianism can be called as well-ordered

society. Because of the mentality that everybody is counted as one, and thus, no

discrimination between men and women. Moreover egalitarianism or equality is a

relationship between people.40 A person finds justice in equality because they feel that

they are counted as one. So much so people are happy when they know that there is no

discrimination and equally treated in the society.

3.4.2 Egalitarian Society

39 Robert C. Solomon, Introducing Philosophy: A Text with Integrated Readings (New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1997),607.

40 Mackerlie, Equality, 274.

23

Rawls view on a well-ordered society can be characterized as an egalitarian

society. However since the concept of egalitarianism was already discuss before

proceeding to this discussion it would be easy then to understood what an egalitarian

society is. An egalitarian society based its concept of justice on the equality of each

person inside the society. Thus it is understood that each person is treated with equal

respect both men and women there is no discrimination. Moreover an egalitarian society

ought to be understood a complete equality among each member of the society or as

raging over a person’s life as a whole.41 So much so an egalitarian society stresses the

significance of the concept of social justice of equal treatment of people in the society.

Indeed an egalitarian society is a picture of a well-ordered society. It is the idea of society

was people find justice through equal treatment and satisfaction.

Furthermore in an egalitarian society it always aims for equality to men.

Moreover in an egalitarian society inequality is not bad but it is unfair.42 It is unfair say

for example that there are goods to be distributed to the people and it was not distributed

equally. In this case there is a possibility that it would create conflict among people in

the sense that other would get envy others because of what they have received and for

sure they will compare the goods that they received from one another. However men are

happy when they are equally supplied with equal resources.43 This is however the basis of

41

? Kai Nielsen, Equality and Liberty: A Defense of Radical Egalitarianism (United States of America: Rowman and Allanheld Publishers, 1985),46.

42 Mackerlie, Equality, 275

43 Ibid.,274.

24

justice in an egalitarian society. Moreover this idea of society can be seen in Rawls

concept of a well-ordered society because every individual is counted as one.

Chapter 4

4.0 On Philippine Context

4.1 The Filipino notion of Justice

Peoples have different understanding and different interpretation of what justice

is. Hence, Filipinos have its own understanding of it. Thus, it is not surprising that

Filipinos have its own notion of justice. This section will present how Filipinos

understands and interprets what justice is.

4.1.1 Freedom

According to history there were three foreigners who invaded the Philippines.

These were the Spaniards, the Americans and the Japanese. Going back to the time of the

Spaniards they stayed in the Philippines for almost three hundred years. Spaniards arrived

in the Philippines in 1565. The purpose of the Spaniards is to colonize the Philippines to

25

increase their colony in Southeast Asia, spread Christianity and introduce European

civilization.44

During the Spanish period Filipinos were caught in a great dilemma. Filipinos

suffered so much in the hands of the Spaniards. Spaniards has taken the freedom of the

Filipinos to live freely in his own native land. They were even mocked and called as an

“Indio”45. Jose Rizal, the national hero of the Filipinos known for his quotation, “Walang

alipin Kung walang magpapaalipin”.46 In this quotation Rizal is trying to express his

feelings about freedom for one’s own land. It is because during the Spanish period.

freedom is obscure for the Filipinos. When the Filipinos tried and started the revolution

against the Spaniards blood flowed and many died. However, after 332 years the

Filipinos successfully escape from the chain of the Spaniards. However, it’s not yet the

end of the quest for freedom because another colonizer came, the Japanese. The concept

of justice during the Spanish period, were almost the same. Freedom is still. During the

Japanese period Filipinos were humiliated and it seems that freedom is obscure once

again. It is a remarkable event during the great battle in Bataan and Corregidor and the

Death March. There were about 76,000 men imprisoned during war. Many died because

they were sick, hungry and wounded. Prisoners walked for almost eighty kilometers and

many died along the way.47 Because of the desire of Japan to colonize Philippines many

44Beinvenido Lumbera and Cynthia Nograles-Lumbera, Philippine Literature: A History and Anthropology (Metro Manila: National, Book Store, Inc., 1982), 31. 45

? The term “Indio” is used by the Spaniards to the Filipinos which means slave. 46

? http://www.joserizal.ph/fi09.html. (Accessed January 11, 2010). 47 Monina A. Mercado, Great Filipino Battles (Parañaque Metro Manila: The

Philippine Alliance Corporation-1979), 75.

26

died of the war. However, peace in the country can also be another concept of justice for

the Filipinos. In this particular event we could see how Filipinos protect their land and

they really seek for freedom. For Filipinos freedom is very important because this is the

sign of a non humiliating society.

4.1.2 Liberty

Liberty is one of the most important aspects in every Filipino citizen. Depravation

of one’s liberty is a kind of injustice to the Filipinos. Accordingly the textbook of the

Philippine Constitution in Article III, Bill of rights Section 1 states that, “no person shall

be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of laws.”48 In this section it is

clearly understood how liberty is so significant in every individual particularly to the

Filipinos. Liberty is the basic right of every individual person in order to socialize inside

the community or society. It is very important in very Filipino citizen because it is the

basis of they can practice freely their rights in accordance with the law. When a person

experience depravation of liberty, there is a tendency to react or revolt in any other way

around like civil disobedience. This is very true for the Filipinos. Going back to what had

happened in the EDSA Revolution during the time of the Marcos regime many Filipinos

struggled to fight for their liberty in order to attain the justice they are longing for so

long. This is one of the most remarkable events in the Philippine history that shows how

Filipinos was so thirst for liberty due to the fact that their liberty was deprived and not

recognized rightly. It is clearly stated in the Philippine Constitution that depravation of

one’s liberty is against the law. But what did the political leaders do. In this context we

48 Ray S. Naguit, Discourse on the 1987 Philippine Constitution: A textbook on Philippine Constitution and Government (Bulacan, Bulacan: Gintong Sinag Publishing, 2002), 175.

27

can see how liberty was so significance for the Filipinos that even up to death they will

struggle just to attain liberty.

4.1.3 Social Justice

What is social justice? Social justice is a broad idea. Many people interpreted it in

different ways. Every individual has different understanding of it. However, Filipino

people have also their own understanding of social justice. According to Jose W.

Diokno49, in his essay “A Filipino concept of justice” which was published in Solidarity

Magazine in this magazine he presented the best definition of social justice for the

Filipinos. As Diokno puts it:

Social justice, for us Filipinos, means a coherent, intelligible system of law, made known to us, enacted by a legitimate government freely chosen by us, and enforced fairly and equitably by a courageous, honest, impartial, and competent police force, legal profession and judiciary, that: first, respects our rights and our freedoms both as individuals and as a people; second, seeks to repair the injustices that society has inflicted on the poor by eliminating poverty as rapidly as our resources and our ingenuity permit; third, develops a self-directed and self-sustaining economy that distributes its benefits to meet, at first, the basic material needs of all, then to provide an improving standard of living for all, but particularly for the lower income groups, with time enough and space to allow them to take part in and enjoy our culture; fourth, changes our institutions and structures, our ways of doing things and relating to each other, so that whatever inequalities remain are not caused by those institutions or structures, unless inequality is needed temporarily to favor the least favored and its cost is borne by the most favored; and fifth, adopts means and processes that are capable of attaining those objectives.50

49 Jose W. Diokno was greatly influenced by American Philosopher John Rawls especially in 50 http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20071215-106988/

A_Filipino_definition_of_social_justice (Accessed December 13, 2009)

28

In this concept of justice presented by Diokno it is quite clear how Filipino people

understand what social justice is. Diokno arrives with this definition of social justice by

observing what is happening in the Philippine society. He will not arrive at this definition

of social justice if he does not experience nor observed that there are lots of social

injustices happening in the country. He was not the only one who defines the meaning of

social justice for the Filipinos yet there are also other Filipinos who define it but they

were left unrecognized since they are not that familiar compare to Diokno. This implies

that Filipino people has their own understanding of social justice based on how they

experience and observe it in their daily life.

4.1.4 Just and Humane Society

What is a just and humane society for the Filipinos? According to the Preamble of

the Philippine Constitution; “We the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of

Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a government

that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserved and

develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and under the rule of law and regime of

truth, justice freedom love equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this

constitution.”51 The Preamble in the Philippine Constitution advocates a just and Humane

Society. More it carries the structure of society as the basis of justice. It probes that each

citizen is secured by the law to what is written in the constitution. Thus the basis of just

society is seen in a just and humane society.

51 de Leon, Textbook on the Philippine Constitution.

29

Ever human person for sure wants a just and humane society. However for the

Filipinos this structure is what they want to be in the society. It is in this structure of the

society where they find the just society.

4.2 Social issues in the Philippines as Hint of a non well-ordered society

There are lots of social issues that can be considered hint of a non-well-ordered

society in the Philippines. These are some of the issues that hinder the Philippine society

to attain a well ordered society.

4.2.1 Rampant Corruption

Corruption has been a problem in the Philippines for almost several decades

already. Nowadays corruption is becoming more and more rampant. Because of

corruption many Filipino people are suffering from poverty. According to the survey 35

billion pesos lost in project anomalies.52 “The Chairman of the Committee on

Appropriations at the Lower Chamber of the Congress said that the Philippine

Government lost 21 Billion to graft and corruption stemming from scheming contracts

entered into by senators and congressmen in 2001 and the amount of money lost to

corruption involving projects executed by other government officials.”53

It shows the extent of graft and corruption that is happening in the country. It is a

manifestation of how the country and its people are suffering from great loss. This is due

to the fact that every act of corruption leads to the privation of the due amount of benefits

that the people must receive from the government. Proper distribution of the money

sustains government’s projects from health to infrastructure, to livelihood and education,

52

? http://www.txtmania.com/trivia/social.php. (accessed July 18,2009)

53 Ibid.

30

peace and order and, etc. thus, a privation of these funds hinders the proper functioning of

the government and the Filipino society as a whole.

Corruption is only one of the many problems that the Filipino society is

experiencing. But a more particular picture of the problem of the society can be seen

through the situation of its people. According to facts, there are 15 million children who

are malnourished in the Philippines. “In 2002 study conducted by the Philippine

Congress, it showed that the about 15.6 million or more that 60 percent of the 25 million

Filipino children (below 18 years old) were malnourished. In a separate study conducted

by the Food and Nutrition Institute (FNRI), three out of 10 Filipino preschoolers were

found malnourished or underweight in 2001.”54

This sad reality is something that the Filipinos are experiencing. Such reality

mirrors how the people struggle for the quest of survival. However, seeing this fact is

much painful to see with the governments’ corruption at its background.

Moreover, corruption today is becoming endemic in the Philippines. According to

the former president of the CBCP Orlando Quevedo, Filipinos have been suffering for

about six decades but corruption is not as bad as now and even elections for Sanguniang

Kabataan is tainted with corruption. He even said “that is a terrible thing”55 More over he

even received two letters on corruption. The first letter was during the term of President

Corazon Aquino and the latest was during the years in office of President Arroyo.

54

? Ibid.

55 Evelyn Macairan, “Corruption in RP not as bad as now, says ex-CBCP official” The Philippine Star News, 16 January 2009,12.

31

During the eight years in office, President Arroyo and members of his family have been dragged into many corruption related issues such as the $329-million national broadband network-ZTE deal and the P728-million fertilizer fund scam. But Quevedo clarified that “corruption is really endemic in the Philippines .It is (also) not the monopoly of one government. “Quevedo, who is also the secretary general of the Federation of Asian Bishops Conferences (FABC), added that there are other countries experiencing the same problem.In fact, “the documents in the FABC and documents that would come out would mention the corruption is endemic in most governments or countries in Asia and not just the Philippines” he said.56

Corruption is really endemic in the Philippines. It shows the characteristic of a non-

well-ordered society. If only political leaders of the Philippines are not corrupt and

honestly serving in the government perhaps this thing would not happened. As long as

this problem continue to exist in the Philippine government it is really impossible to call

it a well-ordered society. In the Philippines it’s not only corruption that hinders its

progress. There are other social issues to be adhered but what the government did is that

they only show the good to people and they hide the truth.

4.2.2 Corruption Leads to Poverty

Corruption is one of the worst form injustices among the people, particularly in a

nation wherein democracy is being practice. It is a system that is hard to eradicate

especially when it is rooted already in the governmental system. It is a crime against the

nation because it can reach to the extent of little by little killing the people because of

depravation of the basic services and needs of people that must be provided.

One of its worst effects is poverty. According to the fact many Filipinos are

living in poverty line the glimpse of hope seems to be obscure to many of the Filipinos

56

? http://www.txtmania.com/trivia/social.php ( accessed July 18,2009)

32

due to the fact that there is only a very rare opportunity to earn a living that can sustain a

family. Thus, it leads to many crimes that are rampant especially in the streets in Manila

and even in some provinces. People who engage in this kind of activities blamed poverty

because of the main reason why they compel in doing such a crime. The people could not

be blamed. This is due to the fact that the government seems to be different in addressing

this issues and neglecting the needs of others. For the past 26 years the rate of poverty

remains unchanged. This is proven by the study conducted by the SWS survey which

says that

Thereafter, the following poverty episodes, all statistically significance, are visible in the SWS survey (quarterly since 1992): the trend in a percentage of Self-Rated Poor (SRP) was downward from 1985 to only 43 percent in early 1987; upward till early 1994, reaching 70 percent; downward till early 1988, going to 57 percent; flat till mid-2001; downward till mid-2004, to 46 percent; upward till mid-2006, at 59 percent; downward till the end of 2007, to 46 percent again. It spiked up in 2008 to 59 percent again; and most recently settle down to 53 percent in September 2009.57

This reality is a clear manifestation that our nation is being caught up stagnant to poverty.

If there is a political determination on the part of the government to alleviate the people

who are living in such degrading situation, there must be already some changes on the

state of living among the people. However, the problem is there is no initiative on the part

of the government to do some actions in order to solve or at least to lessen this problem.

Promises after promises have been uttered for the past two decades to address this

problem. But reality speaks for itself “what the Filipino poor really need is not more

economic growth (which actually hasn’t been of much benefit to them) but consumer

57 Mahar Mangahas, “Poverty’s the same after 26 years” Philippine Daily Inquirer, Opinion, 7 November 2009, A11.

33

price stability and upward flexibility of wages. Economic growth can hardly trickle down

to the poor when the purchasing power of wages is going down.”58 This is what the

people are hoping for and have been longing to have. However, none of this realization is

being acted upon. Now, because of poverty millions of Filipinos are suffering from

hunger. According to Sen. Francis Escudero millions of Filipinos are now suffering from

hunger.59 This is the reality that we need to confront and must not be ignored. The

Filipinos are hungry for justice and equality. While the poor became the poorest of the

poor the politicians on the other hand are enjoying the luxury of eating with silver spoon

in an atmosphere where the people are fighting for survival.

4.2.3Unemployment

Unemployment is another hint of a non-well-ordered society. According to Trade

and Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), 26 percent of the college graduates are

unemployed. To be more precise, 26.2 percent of college graduate aged 24 years old and

below were unemployed.60 This survey shows how many Filipinos are suffering from

unemployment. Nowadays a college graduate has a difficulty in finding job what more

those who was not able finished their studies. It is sad to imagine but this is a

phenomenon that happening in the Philippines today.

In addition according to the news survey of the Enquire Monitor coming from the

National Statistic Office, of the 2.8 million Filipinos unemployed as of April 2009 Labor

58 Ibid.

59 Evelyn Macairan, “Millions are now hungry” The Philippine Star, News, 25 July 2009, P2.

60 Ibid.

34

Force, about half are 15 to 24 years old . While third are between ages 25 and 34.61 To be

more understood here is the chart.

Moreover it shows that most Filipinos are suffering from great unemployment.

This is the reality present in the Philippines today. What is the government doing in this

kind of situation? If this social problem continues to grow what would be the future of the

Filipino families. Indeed this picture that Philippines is not a well-ordered society.

4.2.3 Conflicts in Mindanao

61

? Kate Pedroso, “Most of Unemployed between 15 and 34 (In percent, April 2009)”, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 14 July, 2009, B1, together with the chart

35

There are numerous hints to prove that Philippine society is not well-ordered. One

of those few hints are continues bloody conflict that is happening in some of the countries

region, particularly in Mindanao. The war in Mindanao has a long history. The certainty

of the origin of the conflict cannot be traced anymore because of lone period of conflict

that involves so many aspects of misunderstanding and clashes and ideology. 62

This continuous bloody conflict is affecting every individual particularly those

who are living within the boundaries of the regions in Mindanao. This includes families

who are forced to seek for the other settlements and worst children and youth who are

caught in the cross fire of the clashing ideologies of the government and the rebels.63

This sad reality is being confronted not only by those people involved in the war,

but by the whole Filipino society itself. It affects not only the development of the nation,

but even its peace and order that is always being threaded by the relation of both clashing

parties.

Chapter 5

5.0 Evaluation and Application

5.1 Strengths and weaknesses

One of the good claims of John Rawls concept of justice is his primary aim for a

democratic society to set the most appropriate conception of justice. In setting the most

appropriate conception of justice for a democratic society, Rawls presents the key

elements and structure in attaining a well-ordered society. “Moreover, the fundamental

62 http://www.anakmindanao.com/content/view/202/45/ (accessed January 15, 2009)

63 Ibid.

36

aim of the conception of justice as fairness is to present principle that provides the most

reasonable norms for guiding the political judgments of members of democratic society

in exercising their responsibilities as citizens.”64 In this quotation the principles that

Rawls is saying is the principle of equal liberty and the difference principle of equal

opportunity. Thus Rawls fits his conception of justice for a democratic society. He

believes that the key elements in attaining a well-ordered society rest on the two

principles of the conception of justice as fairness. For Rawls it is possible to attain the

well-ordered society only if we follow the two principles articulated in justice as fairness.

Furthermore the first principle Rawls speaks of equal liberty. According to this

principle each person is to have maximum equal liberty.65 Every individual must be

treated and respected equally according to their liberty. Moreover this principle must be

satisfied first and the second principle automatically followed. Equal liberty is not liberty

as such. For Rawls there are basic liberties that are basic one. These are the liberties of

conscience, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of

person including freedom of psychological oppression, physical assault,

disembarrassment or integrity of the person, the rights to hold personal property, the right

to vote, and freedom from arbitrary arrest.66 Liberty is very important to every individual.

“By liberty, is understood according to the proper signification of the words, the absence

of external impediments: which impediments, may oft take away part of mans power to

64 Samuel Freeman, Cambridge Companion to Rawls (Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 87.

65

? Ibid., 280.

66 Rawls, Theory of Justice, 53.

37

do what he would: but cannot hinder left him, according as his judgments and reason

shall dictate to him.”67 Liberty satisfies the nature of man. Man has the inclination to

socialize within the society and as he socializes he must have something to hold on to

protect his right and it was his liberty. Aristotle said “Man by nature is a social animal” 68

Being as such he needs to become to become just in order for him to live in harmony with

others in a society. Thus he needs to become fair in protecting his liberty and others.

Moreover the second principle automatically follows the difference principle of

fair opportunity. This principle speaks equal fair opportunity. Every individual has the

right to work for himself in the society to sustain his basic needs. The principle of fair

opportunity pertains to those who are regardless.69 Thus this principle is designed for the

worst off. Speaking of the worst of this are the people who are poorer than the poor. As

human person they are part of the society and they are not disregarded less and they have

the right to be accepted in any kind of opportunities that can be found inside the society.

Like any other individuals they have the liberty too. The acceptance of works and

economic opportunities are not only for the rich and the middle class in the society but

poor must be included also as part of the society. Furthermore in this principle also Rawls

stresses the significance of sharing one’s ability. Not all people are gifted.70 In order for

man to be equal with others one must share his ability or skill in order to benefit the worst

67Robert C. Solomon, Introducing Philosophy: A Text with Integrated Readings, 630.

68 Jean Verian, Made for Happiness Discovering the Way of Life With Aristotle, trans., Kathryn Spink ( Great Britain: Dorton, Longman and Todd Ltd., 2001), 128.69

? The term “regardless” pertains to the worst off people in the society

70 The word “gifted” refers to a certain talent or talented man

38

off or the least advantage and make use of it. Thus sharing one’s skill to another is a kind

of justice to those who want to learn.

Another good point to consider for Rawls conception of justice is his assertion on

justice as the first virtue of the social institutions. In this assertion Rawls is trying to say

that justice must be practiced and applied in every social institution. Like a man who

practiced virtue to himself in order to attain his goal in life, like justice as a virtue it must

also be practiced and applied in order to attain the well-ordered society as the goal.

Furthermore another good point to consider is his view on a well-ordered society.

In a well-ordered society he asserts that it is a society regulated by the two principles

without implying a broad conception of the human good.71 Rawls vision of a good

society can be pictured in a well-ordered society. He believed that the two principles of

justice can create harmony in every citizen as well as to the society.

What is a Rawlsian good society? It is an order of harmony and cooperation which expressed through both institutions and personal relations among citizens sharing a commitment for justice. It is a space where people express their individuality through meaning labor, and more importantly, it is a society where disparities in the distribution of wealth are always seen with suspicion and leveled through state policies. Rawls stands for “a democratic regime in which land and capital are widely though not presumably equally held. Society is not so divided that one fairly small sector controls the preponderance of productive resources.72

This statement stressed the meaning of a good society according to Rawls.

Moreover it pictures what a well-ordered society is. A well-ordered society is similar

with the concept of decent society by Avishai Margalit. For Margalit a decent society

does not humiliate people and a civilized society does not humiliate with one another.73

71 Roberto Alejandro, The Limits of Rawlsian Justice (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press., 1997), 123.

72 Ibid., 24.

73 Margalit , The Decent Society, 1.

39

If there is humiliation happening among people it is not a sign of a decent society.

Similarly with Rawls, he would claim that a well-ordered society is in harmony where

every individual should be treated equally according to their liberty and basic rights.

Moreover for Rawls inequality is not bad in the society but it is unfair. That’s why he

came up with the conception of justice as justice as fairness. Thus in a well ordered

society treat every individual with equality according to their basic rights and it is in

harmony with the two principles.

On the other hand from the very beginning of the discussion of Rawls concept of

justice in the society, Rawls gives to much focus on the equality of every individual in

the society primarily in his Theory of Justice where can his concept of justice can be

found. One of the destructing views of Rawls conception of justices his constant

affirmation of absolute equality of every individual inside society. However the

researcher finds this concept unattainable or obscure. In the first place Rawls presented a

principle of justice that pertains to the equality of every individual but Rawls sets a limit

and inequality is permissible. Thus how can it be absolute if there are exemptions?

Another weak point to consider about Rawls conception of justice is it is limited

only for a democratic society. “In the Preface to A Theory of Justice, Rawls indicates that

one of his primary aims is to set forth the most appropriate moral conception of justice

for a democratic society, a moral conception that was better suited to interpreting the

democratic values of freedom and equality than the reigning utilitarian tradition.”74 Thus

Rawls fitted his conception of justice for only a democratic society only. Thus it cannot

be applicable to other forms of society.

74 Freeman, Rawls, 8.

40

Moreover Rawls was criticized by Robert Nozick on his account of justice.” He

argues specifically against Rawls, that a theory of justice should be structured to protect

individual rights against state interference and should not promote pertaining

arrangements that I affect redistribute economic benefits and burdens.” 75It is clear in this

statement that Rawls theory of justice are not structured to protect the rights against the

state interference Rawls was much focus his concept of justice on the equality of every

individual. This is one of the weak points to consider in Rawls concept of justice. In

Robert Nozick’s, Anarchy and Utopia he criticized Rawls saying,

If things fell from heaven like manna, and no one had any special entitlement to any portion of it, and no manna would fall unless all agreed to a particular distribution, and somehow the quantity varied depending on the distribution, then it is plausible to claim that person placed so that they couldn’t make treats, or hold out for specially shares, would ate agree to the difference principle of distribution. But is this the appropriate ate model for thinking about how the things people produced are to be distributed.76

In this statement Rawls was accused by Nozick that he was thinking that social

goods are like norms. Thus, for Nozick, Rawls has an incorrect thinking of what is meant

by social goods. These are some of the criticisms of John Rawls theory of justice.

5.2 Application

5.2.1 Rawlsian Justice in the Philippine Context

Philippines is indeed convoluted with so many social problems in the society. It

can be said that it is not well-ordered due to the fact that many Filipinos are suffering

from social injustices. However, the student-researcher presented some social issues

facing by Philippines today that can be considered as hint of a non well-ordered society.

75 Tom L. Beauchamp, Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991), 375.

76 Ibid.

41

The social issues such as corruption, poverty, unemployment etc. are but among the many

problems facing the Philippines today that hinder its progression as industrialized

country. These problems are not normal anymore for the Filipinos and it is already

alarming. Nowadays, Filipinos are still in the realm for the quest of justice and hoping for

a well-ordered society. But how the Filipinos will attain the well-ordered society that they

are longing for a long time, if the situation is chaotic? Indeed this problem already needs

a most reasonable remedy. However, in this situation the question is will it be possible

for Philippines to become a well-ordered society despite the fact that it is convoluted with

so many social problems both economic and political.

Hence the question on the possibility of having a well-ordered society in the

Philippines is the focus of the student-researcher. With this scenario the student-

researcher wants to prove the possibility of having a well-ordered society in the

Philippines by applying Rawls notion of justice. But how could it be? The Filipino people

are hoping to have a well-ordered society yet there is a lacking elements why even until

now it was not attained. Looking back of Rawls notion of justice it provides the key

elements on the possibility of attaining a well-ordered society. Perhaps these key

elements that Rawls are emphasizing are the lacking elements needed by the Philippines.

Rawls was so much concerned in the justice system in the society particularly in a

democratic society like Philippines. Philippines is a democratic society yet not well-

ordered for the reason that it is convoluted with so many social problems and anomalies

in the government it is understood that there is a problem with regards to the justice

system in the Philippines. In this kind of problem Rawls set the most appropriate

principle for a democratic society in order to attain the well-ordered society. Hence, the

42

most appropriate principles that Rawls is emphasizing is the two principles of justice

articulated in justice as fairness. These are the principles of equal liberty and the

difference principles. However, in order to justify Rawls notion of justice is applicable in

having a well-ordered society in the Philippines the student- researcher will present the

two principles in relation with the present problem facing by Philippines today. For

Rawls it is not possible to attain a well-ordered society if these principles is being

followed and applied in every social institution. Similarly, in the Philippines if this

principles is applied and followed perhaps it is not possible to have well-ordered society

in the Philippines. However, it can be noticed that most of the social problems facing of

Philippines today pertains to unequal distribution of wealth, depravation of liberty and

unemployment. Hence, Rawls principle of justice practically concerned with these social

issues present in the Philippines today. To justify Rawls notion of justice is applicable

and let’s take the problem of corruption by the political leaders who are in authority. In

the Philippines many Filipinos are suffering from great poverty because of corruption.

According to Rawls justice is fairness, but what are the political leaders doing? Now the

question is are they fair enough with the people? Probably it is evident that the answer is

NO, due to the fact that they misused the funds intended for the people. They are using

the money for their own good and neglecting the needs of others that they are supposed to

serve. In this context Rawls notion of justice will aid this problem that is happening at

present in the Philippines. According to Rawls every individual has the basic liberty and

everyone must be respected according to the rights. However, this problem of corruption

has something to do with Rawls principle of justice particularly the principle of equal

distribution of wealth. According to this principle every individual must be given equal

43

distribution of wealth and no one should take advantage. If this principle would be

practiced and applied by the political leaders in the Philippines perhaps the tendency is

that the case of poverty in the Philippines will be lessen. Thus, government leaders must

give what is due to the people and must not sabotage it. According to Rawls a just society

gives an equal distribution of wealth to the people. An equal distribution of wealth is a

matter of justice.

Moreover, Rawls considered justice as first virtue of the society. Thus must be

practiced and applied. Similarly, it must be applied and practiced also in the Philippines,

particularly by the political leaders and every individual Filipino citizen to create

harmony to each and every one as well as in the society. Thus, if these principles are

being followed there is the possibility that Philippines will progress and will have a well-

ordered society.

Indeed this problem facing by Philippines today needs a most reasonable

solution. However the student researcher attempt to use Rawls concept of justice. But

how could it be valid? Rawls provides the most reasonable principle for a democratic

society that the student researcher would like to prove that it is effective. The hints

presented by the student researcher however pertain to inequality. Looking at Rawls

concept of a well-ordered society it is described as regulated by the two principles

namely the principle of liberty and the difference principle. Rawls asserts that if these key

elements which are the two principles it is not impossible to attain the well-ordered

society. Similarly also in the Philippines if this conception of justice by Rawls be applied

and followed the key elements in attaining the well-ordered society there is a possibility

44

that Philippines will progress. Thus Rawls conception of justice will lead the Philippines

to become a well-ordered society.

Chapter 6

6.0 Conclusion

Rawls notion of justice provides the key elements of attaining a well-ordered

society. He claims that egalitarianism or equal treatment of every individual is necessary

in attaining a well-ordered society. For Rawls a well-ordered society is in harmony with

justice. Every human person desires what is good for him. Thus, the ultimate goal of man

in life is happiness and satisfaction. As human person man does not want to be treated

unjustly nor humiliated by others. Indeed, this is very true in man’s life. Justice however,

45

is established for the common good of every individual in the society. It is design to

protect the right of every person. Justice plays a very important role in the society. Rawls

asserts that justice should be the basic structure in the society. However, justice is not

only for the rich but for everybody. Equal treatment of every individual in the society is

very necessary. Without justice perhaps, society is chaotic. One of the good claims in

Rawls conception of justice is his assertion that justice should be the first virtue of every

social institution.

Hence, justice as a virtue it is essential to maintain the well being of the society.

That is the equality among the individual in order to avoid any impediments which is

mostly the cause of inequality. Justice is considered as a virtue, because it must be

practice and applied inside the society.

However, in the discussion of the student-researcher he claims that the Philippines

is not a well-ordered society. This is proven through gathering of facts from news and

reliable networks. The student-researcher points out why the Philippines is not well-

ordered due to the fact that corruption and unemployment can be considered of a non

well-ordered society. Furthermore, after evaluating Rawls conception of justice and

applying it in the Philippine context, the student-researcher would like to say unless we

don’t practice the virtue of justice in the society, it is obscure to have a well-ordered

society. The society and its people will still continue to struggle in order to find justice in

the society which in time creates further chaos, like civil disobedience, rebellion, and to

the extent of revolution.

If justice is not practice there is a tendency for the people to seek justice in any

means. Thus, this creates further division and trouble that hinders progress in the society.

46

Looking back in the Philippine context for the past three centuries, starting from the pre-

Spanish period up to the present, the Filipino is still struggling in search for justice.

However, this is not being recognized because the society is lacking in the promotion of

justice that will help in order to attain equality among the people.

The Filipino people desire a well-ordered society but justice seems to be obscure

especially among those people who do not have the material means to protect their rights.

In situation like this Rawls concept of justice, if it is going to be applied the extent of

inequality in our society will be lessened and thus it will open the path towards a better

life in the society in which justice is practice. In this context the student-researcher would

want to say that all the individual have the role to practice justice. This is due to the fact

that this will help attain a compact society which in Rawls view is a well-ordered society.

This situation is like a family, wherein justice is practice and inequality is avoided. Thus,

it promotes a greater bond in the family. However, the student-researcher agreed with

Rawls in his claim that justice is the key principle in order to attain the well-ordered

society. These are the principles of liberty and the difference principle. The former

promotes equal liberties among the individuals living in the society. It values the rights of

the person to exercise their freedom and protects their integrity as a human being. The

latter has the twofold function. First, it includes the equal opportunity among its members

either in education or economic opportunities. Second, it promotes the individual rights to

have an equal opportunity in having a work that will sustain their daily needs. However,

this is important for each individual in the society to have a reasonable to sustain

themselves and their family.

47

Lastly, the student-researcher, found out that Rawls notion of justice can be the

key elements in order to attain a well-ordered society in the Philippines. Hence, if the

basic elements will be practiced and applied in the Philippine context there is a possibility

of attaining it in our society. After presenting the necessary elements in John Rawls

concept of justice the student researcher would like to conclude that Rawls concept of

justice will lead the Philippines to attain a well-ordered society.