CRITICAL METAMORPHOSIS: THEORY OF THE FINAL FORM OF RAWLS’ JUSTICE UNDER HI

Joshua Caesar O. Elegado

3^rd Year Philosophy

University of Santo Tomas-Legazpi

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to articulate a finality in the theory based on Rawls’ Justice as Fairness. First, to affirm the principles of such theory, second; to articulate a critique on the such principles, and lastly; to articulate a finality or what I call ‘metamorphosis’.

AFFIRMATION

Rawls’ theory of justice has significantly changed the view of a society that is pluralistic, that is, to articulate a public reason to endorse political conception under the so-called Fair system. On people as free, and equal, rational, and reasonable and as practitioners of human rights, are expected to establish a medium to where the congregation is to occur, that is, to have a reasonable consensus to integrate a social contract despite the comprehensive doctrines are concerned. Humans as we are, are expected to be an end-in-themselves, that is, to be an independent governing body. When such objections are integrated, people then are, in the society, are ready to for the social cooperation, that is, to exercise their political rights in advancing the capacity to form a reasonable discussion despite the existing pluralism is existent, to begin with. The question now there is, is that, how do we establish social cooperation without arising a compromise in any form. Rawls administers the hypothetical situation of the Original Position, that is, to establish common ground, we are ought to have a veil of amnesia. Having this established common ground, we then can have equal views of men as equal to ours, without knowing our talents, abilities, race, gender, etcetera. The importance of the veil of amnesia is that we are to agree to a social contract that was agreed upon by men who see and contemplate the idea of the good and conception of justice. Having a social contract born out of justice and the good, we can integrate a well-ordered society that is composed of different views and different cultural perspectives to have reciprocity of what is for the betterment of the entirety or at least almost. Rawls’ idea to bridge the gap betwixt the cultures of the people in the society, he introduces the idea of the overlapping consensus, that is, to have a congregation that consists from the varieties of comprehensive doctrine to articulate to have a common political conception, and has to arrive at an objective point of justice and of rights that are to be followed for the time being. The constitution is in the liquid state, that changes over time as human evolution is concerned, due because the basis of a political conception is the result of the overlapping consensus. In the sense of the fluid state of the constitution, we realize that such a state is a process to a practically attain a utopian government in the context of a liberal democratic regime, that is, open for reasonable values and exercise of rights that is not enclosed to the idea of comprehensive doctrine, and so, a system of the reasonable public as the constitution is established at the very end of the day.

ON STATE OF NATURE

The idea of the stature of nature is to have a basis to establish a social contract to where the people will administer their rights and of freedom given this agreement or consensus. In the state of nature, people are expected to at least possess no background of their skills, talents, and of their being, that is, for this reason, to primarily a relatively terms of equality among men to integrate their governing state at the very end of the day. In Hobbesian terms, his idea of the state of nature is that, of men, are driven by their passions and of desires, that promulgate a constitution to protect others from such desires to put a stop for the passion that is driven by the domination of human nature at the very end of the day. In the Hobbesian state of nature, he accounts if the man agreed to such a contract, he will live a life bound by security, adhere to the rights of property, and the general peace at the very end of the day. To maintain this, people should be able to continually abide by the agreed contract to progress in terms of humanity and of the state. Man is then equal in the state of nature, however, some rights are to be surrendered in the name of sovereignty, that is, all men is ought to have the duty to secure the social contract as a governing institution for the people and not the governing principle for one or few members of society. Hobbes’ idea of the state of nature is mainly historical, that is, based on the historic evidence, where people are primarily on the primitive mode of hunting, and how they have civility based on their social contract. In Rawls’ idea of the state of nature, that is, mainly hypothetical, it is not based on historical evidence, to begin with. Rawls’ calls his state of nature as ‘original position’, that is, man has amnesia, yet, must possess the conception of good and the conception of justice, to begin with. The purpose of the original position is to account for a social contract that is founded in terms of goodness and justice and not driven by motives of any kind, like the Hobbesian state of nature. The principles that integrate the original position must be following rights, that is, to adhere to every person universally without arising of a compromise, to begin with. Such then, when everyone adheres to agree with this contract, everyone is to embrace that such in the context of equality among rights, even if they are to get out on the veil of amnesia. However, it appears that, when they are out of the veil of amnesia, there are inequalities to some prudent matters, such as; financial status, class, and even property. It is deemed to be that, prioritization of rights over good is to be the way of such system under Rawls, this seems to be the limits of equality, that is, the inequality of material. The remedy of this is simply having the socio-economic institution to distribute resources to the worst-off, and that resources came from the better-off. This means that the better-offs are obliged to give their resources to the others who are at a disadvantage until that disadvantaged is better and is auto-sustaining on their ends, to begin with.

THE IDEA OF THE UTOPIA

As the continuous process of public reason to be administered in their liberal democratic regime, their constitution continuously evolves until it reaches the utopia, where everyone is at the state of stability in political and socio-economical accounts. The idea of the utopia is only to be achieved when the idea of social cooperation and the overlapping consensus is administered consistently from the very beginning until the very end of the day. What seems to be the utopic situation of the state? are people then satisfied? Are people then still motivated in any form? This seems to be the questions that are to be asked when the people have reached the peaked of their improvement, in terms of justice, rights, and freedom. The question now there is, is that, is a peak for such improvement of human life in the context of justice as fairness? If so, what does it look like?

ON JUSTICE

On Rawls’ perspective of equality, that mainly tackles the idea of the veil of amnesia, that is, for such people to integrate agreement, they must put themselves in the state of amnesia, where they suspend their beliefs, culture, skills, and of talents, with an only remaining conception of the good and justice. It is for everyone to attain common ground before dwelling into a disagreement. In the process of the said integration of ideas, and reasonable agreements, the values are established for the betterment of all, that is, in terms of rights, liberties, and justice, of and for the people to follow at the very end of the day. However, when we take a look in terms of the economic state of certain sovereign land, that is, there are varieties and also noticeable disparities in such a system that can and may be a problem for the established values agreed in the very first place. There is a principle of distributive justice, wherein, the advantaged are to give their resources to the one who needs it. However, to continue the scheme of social cooperation under people who views themselves as free and equal, rational and reasonable, are unequal in terms of entitlement. We should realize the importance of entitlement, that is, to boost the innovation, we are to strive not any more of the state, but more of our individuality at the very end of the day. If people as they see themselves equal in rights, and not on entitlement, mainly will lead to an unmotivated and stagnant steady state of life for the time being. Why is that so? First, the idea of distributive justice can not be executed without violating the rights of others. Second, the idea of motivation as a driving force to continually phase the continuous practice of social cooperation is limited due to the lacking of incentives for the people to continue (especially to the disadvantaged). On the first problem, the principle of distribution of justice, that is, to make the advantaged obliged to give some of their resources to the disadvantaged. Seems justified yet it crosses the line of the rights of both parties the advantaged and the disadvantaged, because of the retribution being allocated orderly that might be unjust or just in the premise of the consent of the least advantaged. It goes to show that, having the differences of the society paves way for such assets to be distributed to some people who are to be given such materials that deem to be unjust. The question now there is, is that, having such material properties, do they deserve such? In terms of state’s protection to the people as a property-owning democracy is concerned, that is, having the people to pay taxes without their consent is a violation of rights, to begin with. Let’s say that, people at the least advantaged, are to pay taxes to the same amount of taxes that are to be paid by the well-advantaged people, this there, signifies that, everyone is equal, that is, in terms of the original position, but as the reality is concerned, that of the capitalist system plays a game, is but unequal in terms of opportunities. But even if there is mandatory help from the advantaged, it comes to show that, people at the least advantaged are but a parasite to the system of a liberal democratic regime, despite their talents and of skills are to be considered, there is still a factor unequal incentives that are to be fixed at the very end of the day. On the second problem, that is, there is a lack of incentives and of rewards to the people to keep them to be motivated in achieving development in their state. The people that belong to the least advantaged are not rewarded due because of their social class or class status, this, therefore, serves that, to be able to cooperate in such a system is necessary, however, their class status remains the same, even after many consensuses are done at the very end of the day. Some things are to be considered especially for maintaining the social cooperation of all individuals in the state, that is, have the people be rewarded in terms of assets to be able to be motivated at the very end of the day. Some people desire simplicity, some desires entitlement and of materials, some of which are at the position of the least advantaged, who wants to be simple, yet some people are at least advantaged who wants recognitions and entitlements however the system does not seem to reward them in terms of the things they desire out of the rights that have been constituted out of reason. Humans, as we are, has the right to pursue things out of desire, we are entitled to things we desire as part of our nature. As humans have rights, all our rights are protected, that no one should harm us in our health, freedom, and security. Paying taxes for example is good in terms of integrating healthcare, institutions, roads, security forces, rule of law, and the like, however, having to pay taxes violates the rights of others who do not want to pay taxes, and as the state’s duty, that there are no taxes to institute the such, society’s institutions are to collapse at the very end of the day. Such situations are more likely to happen to the least disadvantaged. To remedy the such, the value of competition is to be instituted, so that, people are to feel the fruit of their labors without the intervention of the distributive justice. Mainly, such competition is justified because of the value of entitlement are to be met without violating the rights of the others. Societal roles are to emerge and are justifiable since the stakes are higher, and people are to feel entitlement and law demands to be higher and is to be enforced at any map of the country or a region. Law enforces, and the rule of law is to be effective in terms of this context, because, the duty of them are deemed to be such because of the necessity of security in a state, that is, to prevent people from violating the law and the rights of others in the state. It seems that, if people see that one principle is admirable, they tend to contend the such with a higher level of new principle to be the basis of the people. Society can improve at a dramatic level, an expense that, people are to be envy to power, just like in the state of nature. In such cases, the development is still ensured, and such development is deemed to be in a phase of natural development.

ON HISTORICAL MATERIALISM

On the idea of the state of nature, what is man seems to be with amnesia, to begin with, at least in Rawls’ terms? In the historical shreds of evidence of early civilization, man is in search of resources that is to survive. In this sense, man is but to compete to survive, because what drives them is not justice in the context of the historical nature of man, but rather, resources. On his search for resources, there are other people too, striving for the same resources, they compete until one remains. However, to put a stop to this madness, people are to have a consensus, that is, to have an agreement to sustain life, and at the same time, sustain adequate resources for the group of people who had agreed to such a contract. In a larger sense, in a state of millions of men, to the agreed constitution, must remain loyal to such terms of an agreement to preserve life and for their sovereignty. In this process, the difference of men in terms of material are solved, however, men are to surrender some of their rights, such as liberty and entitlement for his effort as a human being, all of such are to be done, to attain such material equality.

On Marx’s historical materialism, that is, born out of being materialistic rather than being ideally acclaimed. The reason for this is mainly anchored for the society to emerge and to develop, and the material is the basis for the society to emerge at the very end of the day. As we can see, the production of necessities is very much important to the sustenance of life, to begin with, without such, the possibility for development is far dead to be ever imagined. As far as history is concerned, the development of human civilizations is based on their productions of necessities, that is, the importance of goods is much prioritized over the consciousness of ideal. Of course, one reason why Liberals conflict with Marx. Historically, in the primitive era, that is, manhunts to survive, and there was no exploitation because the resources are enough for men to live by. The next development in the Ancient mode was the integration for agriculture, where then slavery emerges and was exploited by the citizens themselves, third development was on the Feudal mode, wherein there is a social class of the bourgeoisie versus the proletariats, and the production of commodities in the form of artisans. The last development was the capitalist modality, wherein, the emergence of the rich class on the production of commodities and was generalized and more exploitation was rampant. The noticeable class struggles are rampant due because of capitalism, the resolution now there is, is that, to remove the rich class for the production be justly distributed. In this matter, that is, in a process where things are to be resolved, must remain humane even though they do deserve such penalties for exploiting people in expense to their luxurious lives be fulfilled. As human beings who are equal and free, rational, and reasonable, we are to promote humanity for the development of all. I say that having material equality and equality in rights, are the two principles for us, humans, to develop at the very end of the day because one; it promotes motivation due because of the incentives that are given, second; it promotes a well-ordered society that is based not only on rights but also solid based consensual material equality. The purpose of this section is act as an equalizer on the prioritization of one over the other because one idea promotes the rights over the other, and one idea, support claims that material must be the basis for such development to be achieved at the very end of the day, I say that there must be the same priority, must be an equilibrium of both principles, to begin with, that is, for such system of a state of democracy to emerge and to develop, as far as the humanity is concerned. With this idea, everyone is motivated and has the drive to fully perform and to commit to social cooperation.

DIALECTICS: THE IDEA OF UTOPIA AND THE FINAL CONSENSUS

As far as the development may continue at afar, the state of utopia may come so soon at a dramatic phase. The utopia where everyone is equal in rights and of consensual material, political stability, and the best peaceful nights of sleep are to be seen, this is just some of those ideas that I come to imagine with. Since everyone’s needs are fulfilled, where do they go in their time of being? This is the question that is yet to be answered, and we will try to find out what seems to be the answer to such a question. On the first premise; people are then in the state of purity where no conflicts of any form will arise, and second; that of men on their reason are fully exhausted that the finality of their consensus has been made. On the first, that the state has fully crystalized on their constitution after generations and generations of consensus are made, that this purity of the state is the standard to the extent that, men will no longer attempt to let go of the such, but rather, maintain this purity until all humans are gone at the very end of the day. Second, that on the finality and of the exhaustion of the reason of men has finally made, or the final consensus has been made. What specifically is this final consensus, I theorized that the final consensus of man in the such of a state is that, “There is the spirit, that recognizes the l, the earth, the individual, the collective, the common good, the justice, the life and of death and everything there is in this world and is eternal.” This simply means, ‘peace of the world’ as everything is perfect.

THE METAMORPHOSIS TO THE FINAL FORM

As every reason has been exhausted, the idea of the utopia has been established and its purity shall remain at rest under the guidance of the spirit. The question now arises, that is, is there an idea after utopia? Can the utopia be exceeded? How then?

To theorize this idea, we must seek intervention from the history, that is, to when did the humans meet the first time the state of being perfect or anyway near that. One context was the state of nature, that is, men are at peace in search of the meaning of his life and have to face various potentialities of rights, justice, goodness, and peace. The second context was the original position, that is, man is in a hypothetical realm where everything was suspended in terms of beliefs, culture, race, abilities, skills, talents, and the like. Such mentioned states are perfect, to begin with, that to find and discover was the main goal, and is perfect in the sense purity.

There is an abrupt change that might come in terms of imagining the idea after utopia, it seems that the possibility of human life to strive for more has been completely exhausted, to the extent that, values, ideas, concepts, and of life, shall have no meaning at the very end of the day. Why is that? As everything seems to be at a peak and has no longer to exhaust from out of reason, values, ideas, and life will no longer have the same value as to where they are newly instituted. Now, the value of everything seems to be lessened because everyone was used to it, and everyone practiced it daily. Without something bad that is happening to the human conditions, there is pretty much nothing to be dealt with. Unless otherwise, we are to go back to the past and live by it, in the state of chaos and of domination where some things are to be fixed.

If humanity will strive for more, the tendency there is is that people are but headed to the original position not as a hypothetical situation, but their reality. Why is that? Because as far as the human convention of consensus is concerned, we must establish our reasonings in the hypothetical realm where everything was suspended that might cause prejudice and biases to the autonomy of the others. We then therefore are stuck in the realm of original position because there is no moving forward anymore. In this sense, as we strive forward, in reality, we only go backward in history that will end up in a cycle as if the generations of generations are but a snap of a finger.

The metamorphosis was the state of the original position as the reality of the final form born out of the system of a regime that aims for utopia. That instead of the fluid state of the constitution is to be upheld, the outcome is crystal solid-state of the original position. This is the idea of the metamorphosis, that forms a reality out of a hypothetical realm, that is, the only way to advance human conditions only to be in a cycle of a historical antecedent.