The Justice of Saving our World: Rawlsian Theory Applied to Environmentalism and Alternative Energy

While respect for nature pervades contemporary thought, issues of environmentalism and alternative energy largely lack a place in modern global conceptions of social justice. A theoretical or philosophical defense of these issues is therefore necessary to reinforce intuitions about nature, and ground them upon some substantive justification. One can find this justification in the Rawlsian theory of justice, which already informs many modern liberal notions. Rawlsian justice relies upon the Kantian notion that humans are autonomous beings— beings that are “ends” in themselves (that have inherent value). Rawls’ theory of justice attempts to respect each of these “ends.” However, traditional Rawlsian theory only considers persons today in its attempt to formulate social justice. By expanding the scope of what one considers to be an “end” to include both aspects of nature as well as persons in the future, one can transform the implications of Rawls’ theory. If these new “ends” are incorporated into the Rawlsian schema, they will gain all the argumentative potency of the influential theory. This expansion of Rawlsian justice will give much needed theoretical support to the issues of environmentalism and alternative energy, assimilating them into conceptions of international social justice. 1 Bryson: The Justice of Saving our World: Rawlsian Theory Applied to Envir Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 2009 O rowan fair, upon your hair how white the blossom lay! O rowan mine, I saw you shine upon a summer’s day, Your rind so bright, your leaves so light, your voice so cool and soft: Upon your head how golden-red the crown you bore aloft! O rowan dead, upon your head your hair is dry and grey; Your crown is spilled, your voice is stilled forever and a day. -The Lord of the Rings The relationship between nature and mankind is a primordial one. J.R.R. Tolkien was not the first to praise nature for its beauty and lament its destruction, nor will he be the last. There is a clear value of the natural environment in the Romantic mindset, which makes up so much of contemporary thought. Yet it seems that this value has been lost in modern society. Society regards “tree-huggers” with a disdain for their radicalism, and views the environment as a passive set of resources to further the advancement of civilization. What happened to living in awe of the power of sublime nature? The awe is still there, buried in the human psyche and entrenched in human nature. What lacks today is not a Romantic value, but an intellectual conception of justice to reinforce intuitions about nature. Just as the modern world has applied justice to intuitions about human equality, theories of international social justice can be formulated to defend the environment. This is not to say that modern society disdains nature; it simply believes that the advancement of societies takes precedence over any feelings that might be held for the environment. Examples such as the Three-Gorges Dam in China illustrate the modern mania with industrial progress, even at the expense of the environment. By defending nature with social justice, a greater balance between the interests of global community and the natural world can be achieved. One of the primary modern conceptions of justice facilitates this 2 Global Tides, Vol. 3 [2009], Art. 1 http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/globaltides/vol3/iss1/1 addition of environmentalism, as well as its sister issue of alternative energy, into the realm of social justice: the Rawlsian theory of justice. By integrating the issues into Rawls’ Original Position, and the Kantian value system inherent in it, it will be seen that Rawlsian justice requires action in both environmentalism and alternative energy, particularly on the international stage. Indeed, the ends found in both environmentalism and alternative energy will demand their due respect and value as a moral requirement of Rawlsian justice. Before applying these theories to environmentalism and alternative energy, it will serve to examine Rawlsian theory, as well as the issues, to establish definitions upon which the application can be based. Rawlsian Theory Examined John Rawls postulated a theory of justice grounded in the concept of social contract theory. Rawls advances his theory of justice through what is called the Original Position (a hypothetical situation in which all individuals are granted perfect equality and are asked to choose a principle of justice behind a veil of ignorance, which eliminates their biases). The hypothetical persons in the Original Position, ignorant of who and what they will be in society and perfectly equal to one another, are able to truly come to a consensus as to what a just society would be. In this hypothetical scenario, persons value and protect even the lowest member of society (from the simple fact that none of these persons know whether or not they will be that lowest member). By stripping individuals of what Kant would call their heteronomy— their selfish inclination to formulate morality around themselves or exempt themselves from moral laws— through the Original Position, Rawls believes that all persons can agree to a binding moral law and social justice. His theory asserts that a contract-like agreement in the Original Position will give a true theory of justice. Rawls sums this up well. He states, “The principles of 3 Bryson: The Justice of Saving our World: Rawlsian Theory Applied to Envir Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 2009 justice...are the object of the original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality” (Rawls, 1971, p. 10). In this way, Rawls clearly follows in the tradition of social contract theory. Justice is a matter of agreement between equal parties, toward the goal of protecting each and every individual. Whereas some theories of justice act only as a tool to judge concrete actions, Rawls’ theory seeks after a concept of justice that is valued in itself. This theory has this inherent value in justice because it operates from an implicit Kantian background. Every “free and rational person” is to be considered in true justice: the multiplicity of Kantian ends that make up the end of justice. It may be true that Rawls rejects the foundationalism of Kantian universal moral law in favor of more flexible, practical moral principles, but he undoubtedly operates from Kant’s respect for the individual as an autonomous end. Rawls (1971/1999) connects his theory to Kant’s value of autonomy when he says, “Kant supposes that [the moral legislation for a kingdom of ends] is to be agreed to under conditions that characterize men as free and equal rational beings” (p. 221). This consideration of every free and equal rational being (every “end in itself”) is what gives Rawls’ theory of justice its power and its inherent value. This is accomplished through the mechanism of the Original Position, the hypothetical scenario that assures absolute equality. This process of discovering justice— the valuing of all human ends within the Original Position— is the most important aspect of Rawlsian theory and leads to many considerations about justice. Indeed, modern social justice, from international human rights to equal civil rights, is largely informed by this prominent theory.