Comparative Analysis of Rawls's and Cohen's Principles of Justice

Abstract

As highly influential contemporary political philosophers, John Rawls and G.A. Cohen have each developed distinct principles of justice centered on distributive justice. Rawls, grounded in a liberalist standpoint, focuses on the basic structure of society and follows a constructivist theoretical approach. This leads to a principle of justice concerned with the design of social order, presenting as a regulatory rule, and attempts to construct a procedure for justice. In contrast, Cohen, rooted in a socialist standpoint, emphasizes individual choices and adheres to an intuitionist theoretical approach. Consequently, his principle of justice focuses on egalitarian relations between people, manifests as a fundamental principle, and seeks to establish a ethos of justice. Both philosophies demonstrate a concern for disadvantaged groups, yet they share characteristics of abstraction and limitation due to their detachment from concrete socio-historical conditions. A thorough critical reflection on the theoretical differences between Rawls and Cohen, and a summary of the strengths and limitations of their respective principles of justice, hold significant reference value for exploring practical pathways to achieving fairness and justice.