Rawls on Equality and Justice/ Justice vs. Law of Nature

Rawls asserts that justice does not arise "from an original agreement in a situation of equality" (p.13). Rather, justice must be established first, as it "is the first virtue of social institutions" (3).  He uses the principle of utility to support his point and argues that this principle will not stand if there is only the understanding of equality and not justice, due to human selfishness. If there was no sense of justice in a society in which people viewed themselves as equals, it is hard to imagine people agreeing "to a principle which may require lesser life prospects for some simply for the sake of a greater sum of advantages for others" (13). An individual will act to protect only his interests without the understanding of justice. Therefore, "in the absence of strong and lasting benevolent impulses, a rational man would not accept a basic structure merely because it maximized the algebraic sum of advantages irrespective of its permanent effects on his own basic rights and interests." The principle of utility cannot operate in a society of equals that only look out for their own interests and cannot work toward a mutual advantage. 

Locke, on the other hand, uses the law of nature to introduce justice. The law teaches that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, or possessions." Although Locke does not directly introduce the idea of justice, there is a sense of fairness and respect between human relationships that is established through his law of nature. One can argue, however, that someone could get away with an act that is unjust but does not violate the law of nature. The law of nature prohibits the harming of another person's life or possessions. The idea of justice, as introduced by Rawls, goes further to use it to explain social relationships in which individuals must be mindful of the common good or the interests of the general public. For example, a man might hoard available land at the expense of his neighbor. However, since the man did not steal from his neighbor or harm him to get the land, this act does not go against Locke's law of nature. Rawls, however, may assert that the man is not upholding justice by hoarding the land because it goes against the idea of justice as fairness.