Institutional Justification:Questions And Approaches

Questions of justification in moral philosophy are divided into two levels: justification within morality and justification of morality. Question of justification of institutions this paper will discuss lies in the first level and has a connection with normative moral theories. Our subject is social basic institutions, so this discussion also belongs to political philosophy.As an important dimension of the moral evaluation of social institutions, justifiability should be distinguished from legitimacy. The former is about the intrinsic character of institutions, while the latter concerns the way in which the institutions realistically arise.Justice and stability are two indispensible aspects of the justifiability of institutions. Justifying a certain kind of institution is to show that it is not only just but also stable. To say a certain kind of institution is stable is to say that everyone who lives under it can be moved to comply with it and act on it without external command and force. This kind of stability requires congruence between justice and personal good.Generally speaking, there are two approaches to justify institutions:utilitarianism and contractarianism. The theoretical structure of utilitarianism is a combination of consequentialism and welfarism. Utilitarianism as a theory of justice is debatable. Taking all the preferences into utility calculation doesn’t express but distort the idea of treating people as equals.Contractarianism has many faces that should be identified. Firstly we should distinguish between traditional contractarianism and contemporary contractarianism in the respect of the question zone. Contemporary contractarianism is not a theory about political obligation and the legitimacy of political authority. Its aim is not to reveal the condition political obligation arises, but to provide moral justification for the rule, institutions and practice. The justifiability of social basic institutions does not require the actual consent of social members.According to the conception of the person and the conception of practical reason, we need to distinguish two versions of contemporary contractarianism. Gauthier assumes people are rational and only occupy a personal standpoint. He claims that the result of bargain and compromise between rational individuals who has conflict interests is just. This theory ignores the tension between justice and mutual advantage and misses the intuitive idea of intrinsic value of person. Rawls assumes that people are not only rational but also reasonable, which means that people can take into account others’interests. For Rawls, principles and institutions can be justified if and only if they would be reasonably and rationally agreed, which means they are acceptable from the public perspective and the individual perspective.Rawls’contractarian justification takes into consideration both justice and stability of the institutions. More importantly, a reflective equilibrium can be reached between this version of contract theory and our deepest moral intuitions. Contractarianism shows respect for persons and match the idea of publicity and impartiality. If properly understood, Rawls’ doctrine will not open to the objections often thought fatal to it.