John Rawls Individualism

Why John Rawls’ theory of justice actually attacks the central pillar of Western thought about self-determined human individuals acting on a basis of a free will and therefore being responsible for the results of their decisions and actions? Is it possible to rescue the idea?

We have become accustomed with the idea of individualism ever since the Enlightenment period, as never before in the history. With the idea of individualism being emphasized, we engraved in our thoughts ‘the fact’ that the individuals are to be held entirely responsible for the results of their actions or decisions. Some of the brave individuals whom today we regard as the enlightenment philosophers, pronounced loudly the individual responsibilities for empowering communal

Is it that simple? Judging from the scientific observations provided to us, I assume this definition neglects the effort to giving a more profound understanding. It does not give any accounts on what constraints to consider. Is it possible that we can act without constraints? Let us try to suppose upfront what these constraints may be. The fact that human nature is subjugated to natural laws, is not the only explanation how do we, human beings, live and interact. Yes, it is the brain ‘algorithms’ that drive us to a large extent. Nonetheless, it is also the non-biological part of us, the social influences that we acquire as we live and experience, which give a certain direction to these algorithms. Given the fact that our upbringing constitutes loads of social interaction in different environments, which shape us as individuals, it is fairly understood that the individuals are generally different from each other, bringing social inequalities. But the point is, whether these differences could at any time be equalized, bringing us all to the same point, where everyone would shape the path to enhancement of our social and economic standing, without constraints. Being able to equalize everyone in a common starting point, would then mean that we are to be held responsible for any human related affair that we chose to divert from or to strive for. But, can we really be held responsible for the things we cannot control? The

Thus, in his book A Theory of Justice (1971), he provides us with a theory that he calls Justice as Fairness, aiming to the setting up a fair and just society for all, considering the existing inequalities. The model of this theory was like a response to the Utilitarianism, which does not take into account the rights and liberties of the minorities. The reason to come up with something substitutional to the prevailing utilitarian theory, can be traced to the very basic assumptions that according to Rawls, constitute human nature. Rawls believes that humans are individuals, differently equipped with physical features, natural talents and circumstances. What puts them on an equal basis, is their capacity of rationality and reasoning, meaning that individuals are rational in terms of conceptualizing what is good for themselves, but at the same time, they are reasonable in terms of acknowledging the right things for themselves and for the others in the community. So they can choose. The way that Rawls distinguishes the rationality from reasoning, points to the idea of consideration of humans as social beings, who are neither egoistic nor altruistic, but rather seeking a risk-averse positioning of themselves in the best way possible. At the end of the day, we are individuals, seeking rights,