John Rawls' Eyes

Deception; In the Eye of the Beholder: A Glimpse into the Public's Eye through the Mind of John Rawls

Deception through means of withholding information doesn't just mean doing this action in a physical sense. What I mean is that people are unaware of their actions at times. In their minds they're not withholding any information or being deceitful in any way. The mind is a powerful thing and can sometimes deceive the public's eye. Another view would be a certain political party perhaps withholding information from the public, but the public is completely oblivious to this information being withheld from him or her. That certain party would be the ones deceiving the public's view. John Rawls, famous American philosopher since the mid-century, has many different views and theories on this subject matter.

Rawls is trying to work out a "public philosophy" in whose terms we can understand ourselves as citizens and responsibly argue with one another about disputed questions of justice.[i] This Rawlsian principle shows that if people understand what is going on, then he or she will completely be aware of his or her actions. The certain individual will also be aware if information is being withheld from him or her and will be able to argue in the sake of justice. Justice will no longer be blind in the eye of the beholder according to this John Rawls principle. Every citizen will be able to speak his or her mind in a dignified manner and address the issue of concern. The deceitful party, whoever it may be, will not be able to fool citizens anymore or hold back important information. Now, the complete truth would be uncovered for the whole public to see.

Rawls argues that, since politics has to do with the public good, political arguments should be made in terms of what he calls "public reason": that is in terms open to all reasonable citizens.[ii] This means all reasonable citizens have complete access to vital information and can not have it withheld from them in any way. "We know that not everyone agrees with assisted suicide, but people might agree that one has the right to it, even if they're not themselves going to exercise it," said Rawls.[iii] Every person should have the right to make their own decisions and be able to make their own choices regardless of what the outcome may be. Whether the consequence is good or bad, a person should be able to come to the realization within their own mind, but also should have all the facts embedded in their brains so that he or she can make an intelligent choice. This means another political party, hypothetically speaking, can not hide any bit of solid fact from the individual seeking the best answer. If that certain individual does not have all the facts at his side, then he or she can not make an intelligent choice on his or her own. Rawls agrees that, since public reason has to do with the public good, it is not limited to talk of rights, but extends to questions of what is right, reasonable, or good.[iv]

Professor Rawls, who taught philosophy at Harvard University from 1962 to 1995, sat down with Bernard G. Prusak, a former graduate student in Philosophy at Boston University, to discuss his most recent work at his home in Lexington, Massachusetts. Rawls was asked a question about religion here in the U.S. and this is what he said, "I live in a country where 90 or 95 percent of the people profess to be religious, and maybe they are religious, though my experience of religion suggests that very few people are actually religious in more than a conventional sense."[v] Rawls realizes though that religious faith is still a very important part of this American society. What he's getting at is that people in society are once again blind in their actions. A person may go to church once a week for example, hypothetically speaking, and may consider him or herself quite religious at heart. Though, in reality that person is deceiving him or herself because their heart may not be fully into it. Going to church once a week just to say you did it and that makes you a religious person isn't the right solution. Going to church once a week to get involved with God and be completely into it is a better solution. The 90 or 95 percent of people that considered themselves quite religious, some of those people may not being honest with themselves or the rest of the American population. If some of those people are telling you they are religious, but in reality they are not, then they are withholding information and are not giving accurate information to the American public. These same people are not giving the rest of the citizens an equal or fair chance to determine how many people are actually religious in the United States. The bottom line is that they are being deceitful to themselves and to the rest of America. John Rawls would agree because that's what he bases one of his principles on.

Next, Rawls is asked about the common good for each individual in our society, what is the common good? And how does a person achieve such a common good? "For example, you might say that, if citizens are acting for the right reasons in a constitutional regime, then regardless of their comprehensive doctrines they want every other citizen to have justice. So you might say they're all working together to do one thing, namely to make sure every citizen has justice. Now that's the only interest they all have, but it's the single thing they're all trying to do. In my language, they're striving toward one single end, the end of justice for all citizens," said Rawls.[vi] What Rawls is trying to say here is that some people get lost in the shuffle, while others are stay right on top. Justice for every citizen is a means to an end, but sometimes not a logical choice. Even though that's what every person strives for as his or her personal common good in this world, it doesn't always happen like that. For example, an innocent person might go to jail while a guilty person may get off scot-free. This doesn't seem fair, but the world's not perfect. The justice system will do everything it can to make sure an individual receives the same fairness as the next person. Sometimes deception occurs and information is withheld from a person or party, which is unfair justice. Sometimes justice is blind in the eye of the beholder. The best motto to take out of this one would be that you win some and lose some. It sounds like a shaky measure of a person's allowance of fairness and not very systematic, but that is the way the world works sometimes.

"Rawls is not pretending, then, to solve our political problems. What the idea of public reason can do for us, he argues more modestly, is give us an insight into the meaning of citizenship and the resolve to endure these problems. For Rawls, trying to come to terms with one another is the virtue of democratic citizens. On his view, the moral worth of treating one another as free and equal cannot be broken down into the good of isolated, self-interested individual, but must be considered as a whole," Prusak said of Rawls.[vii] Rawls is simply not trying to solve all the problems, but just trying to offer the best solutions and give some guidance toward making the right choice. Making the right choice, granted you have all the information in front of you need to make an intelligent decision, should be all you need according to John Rawls. Hopefully, that will be the end of deception in the eye of the beholder as well, thanks in part to Rawls.

Related to the topics of deception and withholding information, adding an overview of the long career of John Rawls would be well-deserved. "John Rawls, who turned 80 this year, is the most distinguished moral and political philosopher of our age," said Martha Nussbaum of The Chronicle of Higher Education.[viii] In his book, A Theory of Justice, Rawls has held that moral judgments of ordinary people are an essential starting point for good political deliberation. He also maintained that philosophical tradition and argument have an important role to play in sorting out what we think, particularly by putting alternatives before us with sufficient rigor and clarity that we fully appreciate how to choose among them.[ix] This sums up one of the points talked about earlier of the Rawlsian way. Rawls's model of "purity of heart" was touched on in Theory of Justice and it has two parts related to my topic. "First is the description of people in the hypothetical situation of choosing principles for living together. They are imagined as rational, self-interested individuals who aim to do as for themselves as they can, who have needs that can be met more effectively by cooperation than by no cooperation," Nussbaum said of Rawls's views.[x] This was touched on earlier in the essay.

"Then the second part of Rawls's model comes in one of Rawls's most important concepts: the "veil of ignorance," which ensures that the parties do not know where they will be placed in the resulting society. They do not know their class, race, or sex. They know that they all need "primary goods" like liberties, opportunities, powers, wealth, and income. The veil is the crucial part of Rawls's conception of the moral person. It is the part that supplies "purity of the heart," in the form of a morally decent impartiality toward the projects of others. Rawls's idea is that, where social justice is in question, real people should always try to choose without being biased in the direction of their own special interests," Nussbaum said of John Rawls.[xi] That's a good way to end because it shows the deep thinking through the mind of John Rawls and how he summed up all of this regarding deception and withholding information from the public. It's summed up in so many words from a man with solid beliefs and much prestige. The deception may never be completely uncovered, but at least a person can try if they have all the information in front of them to make the best possible choice. This is all a single person can do and expect from one another and this is what John Rawls expects too.

[i] Prusak, Bernard G. (1998), 'Politics, Religion & The Public Good, An interview with philosopher John Rawls', at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/1998/980925/98092512.htm (accessed: 2 April 2004).

[ii] Prusak, Bernard G. (1998), 'Politics, Religion & The Public Good', at http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/1998/980925/98092512.htm (accessed: 2 April 2004).

[iii] Rawls, John (1998), 'Politics, Religion & The Public Good', at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/1998/980925/98092512.htm (accessed: 2 April 2004).

[iv] Prusak, Bernard G. (1998), 'Politics, Religion & The Public Good', at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/1998/980925/98092512.htm (accessed: 2 April 2004).

[v] Rawls, John (1998), 'Politics, Religion & The Public Good', at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/1998/980925/98092512.htm (accessed: 4 April 2004).

[vi] Rawl, John (1998), 'Politics, Religion & The Public Good', at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/1998/980925/98092512.htm (accessed: 4 April 2004).

[vii] Prusak, Bernard G. (1998), 'Politics, Religion & The Public Good', at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/1998/980925/98092512.htm (accessed: 4 April 2004).

[viii] Nussbaum, Martha (2001), 'The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Enduring Significance of John Rawls' , at The Chronicle of Higher Education, from the issue dated July 20, 2001( accessed: 20 March 2004).

[ix] Nussbaum, Martha (2001), 'The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Enduring Significance of John Rawls' , at The Chronicle of Higher Education, from the issue dated July 20, 2001 (accessed: 20 March 2004).

[x] Nussbaum, Martha (2001), 'The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Enduring Significance of John Rawls', at The Chronicle of Higher Education, from the issue dated July 20, 2001 (accessed: 20 March 2004).

[xi] Nussbaum, Martha (2001), 'The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Enduring Significance of John Rawls', at The Chronicle of Higher Education, from the issue dated July 20, 2001(accessed: 20 March 2004)