THE PROBLEM OF JUSTICE

John Rawls, at the beginning of A Theory of Justice, relates justice and truth by saying that “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.” Some thirty years earlier, Reinhold Niebuhr had drawn a similar connection, but with a distinctly Niebuhrian twist: “The struggle for justice is as profound a revelation of the possibilities and limits of historical existence as the quest for truth.” Where Rawls characterizes the searches for truth and justice as the most important achievements of thought and action, Niebuhr sees both quests as also revealing characteristic human limitations.

The contrasts suggested by these aphorisms are borne out in each author's treatment of the problems of justice. Rawls regards justice as a social achievement that has value for any society of persons with diverse goals and interests, whatever other things those persons may seek and value. Niebuhr understands justice in relation to love, which is for him the ultimate value that all persons share. Precisely because complete justice is identical with a human good in which everyone would participate, however, it is impossible to achieve; and it is when we try to create human good on the scale of nations and empires that we become most acutely aware of our limitations.

REALISTIC LIBERALISM?

Niebuhr and Rawls understand justice differently, and some of these differences can be traced to changes in the historical context in which they wrote. Though each man was attuned to the nuances of liberal political thought in the mid-twentieth century, changing social problems led to significant changes in the role that an idea of justice was expected to play in public life.