| The question of justice has been a constant focus of human society,and it is because thinkers have understood and defined justice differently that a rich and diverse body of doctrine has emerged.Rawls and Dworkin are both representative figures of neoliberalism,both in the tradition of liberalism’s emphasis on freedom and in the beginning of a concern for the value of equality.The theories of the two thinkers are inextricably linked to each other.This article takes a look at Dworkin’s critique of Rawls’ view of justice and analyses how Rawls’ arguments for a series of principles of justice,etc.,were refuted by Dworkin and how he developed his own theory of justice on top of the critique.On closer examination of the two views of justice,there are major differences.First,there are differences in the design of specific justice systems: while they both attempt to make justice in social distribution possible through the design of social distribution systems-Rawls proposes two major principles of justice,Dworkin proposes the ’desert island auction’,the ’jealousy test’,and the ’jealousy test’,"But their theories differ in the design of what is distributed and how it is distributed.Secondly,their understanding of the primary values of justice differs: justice entails a series of values such as freedom,equality and order,but which values are included in the system of justice? Is there a distinction between primary and secondary values? What are the principles to be followed in resolving conflicts of values within the system? Rawls and Dworkin give different answers to this series of questions about the content of justice,but the most central question is which values have the greatest say and dominate the system of justice? Rawls’ answer,in accordance with his conception of justice,is freedom,while Dworkin’s answer is equality.But both attempt to reconcile the contradiction between the two values of equality and freedom,and propose different ways of resolving the conflict based on their own conceptions of justice.And the fundamental reason for the difference between Rawls’ and Dworkin’s views on justice is due to the different bases on which they see justice: ethics distinguishes between deontology and purposivism according to the question of the order between the just and the good;Rawls stands on the deontological perspective,criticises the typical representative of purposivism,i.e.utilitarianism,insists on the priority of the just over the good,and believes that justice applied to the basic structure of society is justice;while Dworkin,on the Dworkin,on the other hand,puts forward the idea of a rights-based approach in addition to a duty-based approach and an ends-based approach,arguing that the basis of justice comes from rights,whether in Rawls’ or his own view of justice.Dworkin inherits and carries forward the consistent liberal approach of using individual rights to safeguard individual interests,rights as a basis for equality,and rights to defend justice.Theories are necessarily all about serving reality,and a theory that fails to guide practice and bring about a better future for humanity will be meaningless.We study the consensus and differences between the two thinkers on theories of justice,and we also draw inspiration and guidance from them for social practice.The social problems of their time,such as social stratification,the widening gap between the rich and the poor,and the lack of protection of basic rights,are also problems that exist in today’s society,which transcend time,geography and race,and are persistent problems in the progress of human civilisation.Theoretical discussions on the design and implementation of justice systems are of indelible significance to the construction of modern state systems,the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights,the concern and protection of vulnerable groups,and the construction of the modern rule of law. |
