This essay will start with a discussion about John Rawls’ principles of justice.

After that a justice

issue will be given and analyzed its relation to the principles of justice. This essay will be concluded by
connecting justice as fairness in terms of Rawls’ definition to the market.

• DISCUSSION OF THE TWO PRINCIPLES

The first principle of justice states that each individual is entitled to the basic liberties keeping in
mind that it is equal and adequate. These basic liberties are the same for each, so these liberties must
be accessible to all. This first principle acts as the base for all succeeding principles of justice. It is kept
intact and must be satisfied first among all the other principles, which means that it is of priority over
the next principle. This irremovable claim over basic liberties cannot be made to be replaceable over
anything other than itself. The relevant weight of the first principle compared to the other principles is
made to be effective by placing it under the keeping of the political constitution, to emphasize and to
properly take in its effect in the society. This principle also implies that no one should have an
unreasonable and special immunity from what is subjected only to a specific group of individuals

The second principle is situated in the paradigm of the economic institutions. Before
understanding the second principle, we should know that Rawls does not totally take all social and
economic inequalities as bad or unjust. Some social and economic inequalities should be left on its own
and let it run its course. However, there are two conditions to be satisfied so that the inequality is still
considered to be just. The first condition is called the fair equality of opportunity. Operations related to
the upkeep of the political institutions such as elections and applications for political positions should be
accessible, fair, and equal. No matter what the inequalities exemplified by the different social and
economic disparities between individuals, virtually everyone is able to have an equal opportunity to
political liberties. This is an example of letting the inequalities run its course on its own, as long as the
condition of a fair equality of opportunity is satisfied.

The next condition under the second principle is called the difference principle. Again, this is also
concerned with allowing social and economic inequalities, but the condition to be satisfied now here is
that as long as the inequality will ultimately benefit for the good of all. For example, an instance where
those individuals who possess huge amounts of wealth, with a noticeable gap compared to the majority
of the population, can still be considered as just as long as the inequality produces effects that will be
able to make those at the unfortunate end of the inequality to benefit from it. This implies that an
approach to some inequalities is to treat it as a source of a restorative force against itself, or other
inequalities.

• INTRODUCE THE JUSTICE ISSUE

Government had enacted into law a compromise to counter the increasing consumer demand
1
on rice hence, the Rice Tariffication Law. Here, the issue of justice scopes to this law’s popular effects to
the local Filipino rice farmers that, according to Bantay Bigas2, a farmers’ union, “it would put farmers to
lower income”; in other words, the issue is the Filipino farmers’ sacrificial position to address inflation,
and meet consumer demands. The writers introduce this market and justice issue to make sense of
Rawls’ two principles of justice in relation to status quo in most incontestable terms.

• CONNECTION OF THE ISSUE TO THE TWO PRINICPLES

 Rawls advocates for a combination of 'equality' and 'difference' principles in his scheme of
establishing justice. In fact, the basic aim of Rawls, as he himself states and admits that, is to provide a
philosophy of justice which could be an alternative to the ulititarian principle of justice(Journal of
Political Science vol. 54).

The rice tarrification law was passed in the effort of decreasing the price of rice and allow for
consumers to buy rice at an affordable and cheap price since the inflation of rice was a major problem
before. Though the law was rejected upon by the farmer groups since they clamor that the new law will
make them compete with cheap rice imports, decreasing their expected income as a result, the price of
rice being cheaper would ultimately benefit the worse off in society and allow them to be able to buy
rice at an affordable price therefore relating to Rawl's principles goal of fairness and benefit of those of
the lower class.

CONNECTION OF JUSTICE AS FAIRNESSS TO THE TWO PRINCIPLES

John Rawls’ principles of justice is seemingly a practical approach to the realities of the
conditions in a market. It is an approach to, specifically, the realities of having scarce to considerably
adequate but an unavoidably limited number of resources. It is about making the most out of these
limited resources, while still maintaining principles of equality and attention for the common good. In
the realm of the market, the utopian ideal might be that of having unlimited resources, and these
principles of justice act as laws that maintain the state of the market as close as possible to the utopian
state. It will only keep the state of reality as close as possible to the perfect state and will never equal to
that of a utopian state. This is exemplified by allowing some social and economic inequalities, and to
have these inequalities act as a remedy to those at the unfortunate end.

Notes:
• [ARTICLE ANALYSIS] Will Rice Tariffication Live up to Its Promise?. Rappler. Retrieved
from www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/218393-analysis-will-rice-tariffication-live-up-to-
promise.
• Bantay Bigas Group concerns on Rice Tariff enactment: Implementation of safety nets under
the rice tariff law. accessed on https://www.freefarm.org/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi.