As stated above, Rawls’ stipulates that the first principle is lexically prior to the second: it must be satisfied before the second can be attended to.
Rawls arrives at these two principles by proposing an ideal impartial starting point which he labels “the original position” (1971, [2005]). Here, representatives of citizens decide from behind a “veil of ignorance” on the principles of justice that will underpin their society in the form of a social contract (1971, [2005]). The veil of ignorance prevents these representatives from knowing what their social status, gender, religion, or personal philosophy will be in this hypothetical society.
The idea, here, is that a liberal society must be grounded on principles which any reasonable person could endorse — and so without access to these morally arbitrary facts about themselves, representatives will choose principles which Rawls describes as entirely “freestanding”(1993, [2005]). Freestanding principles are those separated from comprehensive doctrines and stemming from the “public political culture” rather than any controversial comprehensive doctrine about which we could reasonably disagree (Rawls, 1993, [2005]).
To understand why this is crucial for a liberal society, in Rawls’ eyes, we need to turn to his second work.
Political Liberalism
The link between Political Liberalism and A Theory of Justice can be a little confusing, as Political Liberalism is often regarded as in some ways an alteration of Rawls’ original theory. However, it’s useful to look at Political Liberalism through the lens of two key questions which Rawls asks — questions which Samuel Freedom describes as problems of “legitimacy” and of “stability” (Freeman, 2007).
The legitimacy problem: given that we do all hold such disparate worldviews, how can it be legitimate for a government to coerce its citizens into following one law?
As an example, imagine there’s a group of ten people who all need to climb a mountain together. But each member of the group has a different idea about how best to climb the mountain; the kit required, the safety precautions, and the best route to take — and the rules of this scenario require that they must all have the same kit, take the same route, and have the same provisions.
Let’s say that, in the end, they’re required to take a vote on all of these different factors and that the result of their vote becomes binding. If they each truly believe that their way is the best, the safest, the most correct way (and let’s suppose that there’s no way of knowing who is, in fact, objectively correct about the “best” way of scaling the mountain) — how could they ensure that the binding quality of the vote be legitimately enforced?
The stability problem: this problem, is, essentially, the question of why anyone would obey a law imposed on them by a government that are representatives of such diverse worldviews. If citizens aren’t willing to obey the law, a government won’t stay stable for long.
It’s important to remember here that these are really important questions when it comes to securing liberty — a key part of any liberal theory. Given that we all have such disparate worldviews, we all probably have a certain way we’d like to live. But at the same time, some ways of living might conflict with others.
Take the idea of multiculturalism: in most contemporary societies, people with very diverse religious and cultural backgrounds live alongside one another. A liberal society must ensure that society is set up in such a way that we can all pursue our own lives and interests to the maximum degree, without impeding on anyone else.
Rawls’ solutions
Before jumping into Rawls’ solutions, an important thing to note is Rawls’ understanding of what it means to be a “reasonable citizen.” Rawls holds that every citizen holds their own comprehensive doctrine, a set of beliefs including moral and philosophical concepts (Rawls, 1993, [2005]). However, as reasonable people, we are not willing to impose these doctrines on others. We accept the “burdens of judgement” — the idea that deep issues such as religion, philosophy, morality, are very complex, and that we’re all liable to disagree about them. (Rawls, 1993, [2005]).
Solution to the legitimacy problem
Rawls argues that the exercise of political power is legitimate only under the following conditions:
