Liberalism and the Limits of Justice

Imagine a world where justice is not just a tool for maximizing happiness but a principle standing firm and independent, like a lighthouse guiding ships through stormy seas. Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. This profound idea invites us to think about justice not as a mere consequence of social utility but as a foundational moral law, one that protects the dignity and freedom of each individual regardless of their desires or the majority's will.

In this world, the self is not merely a bundle of desires or a product of social conditioning. It is an autonomous subject, a being capable of stepping back from its ends and reflecting on them. This subject is prior to its ends, meaning it is not defined by the goals it pursues but rather by its capacity to choose among them. Such a conception of the self is crucial because it allows justice to be truly impartial and universal. It demands that principles of justice do not presuppose any particular conception of the good life; instead, they protect the freedom of each to pursue their own values.

Contrast this with a different vision, where justice is valued only insofar as it promotes happiness or social welfare. Here, justice can be sacrificed if a greater good is served. But this raises troubling questions: what if the happiness of the many comes at the expense of the rights of the few? Would we accept a society where injustice is justified by the greater pleasure of the majority?

These questions reveal the boldness of the Kantian claim: justice must be an end in itself, not a means to an end. It must be grounded in the autonomous will of subjects who are free and equal. This claim is both moral and epistemological, asserting not only the importance of justice but the way it is justified independently of contingent desires.

Consider the example of human rights. Their inviolability is not because they make society happier but because they protect the autonomy of individuals. The right to freedom of conscience, for instance, cannot be overridden merely because the majority disagrees with a particular belief. This respect for the individual’s capacity to choose is the heart of the Kantian vision.

As we embark on this journey through the limits of justice, it is essential to keep in mind this foundational insight: justice is the framework that enables a plurality of individuals to coexist peacefully without imposing a single vision of the good life. Yet, as we will discover, this framework has its limitations, especially when confronted with the richness of human community and identity.

Let us now move to explore how this ideal plays out in the practical construction of justice, particularly through the lens of the original position, a hypothetical scenario designed to capture fairness and impartiality.