We will now examine John Rawls' theory of justice. The order in which I will present this is as follows: first, I will discuss Rawls' definition of justice as fairness. Then, I will outline the principles that he logically establishes for this definition. I will also look at that process, and finally, I will share my thoughts on how we should view Rawls' concept of justice.

So, what is justice? In Chinese characters, it is written as 正義, where 正 means correct or fair, and 義 means righteousness. In other words, justice refers to what is fair and right. If we look for a definition of justice, we find that it is a value that social members recognize as fair and right in order to constitute and maintain society. Justice is, therefore, a desirable state, a way of life, and a principle that can guide our actions.

There is a philosophical foundation that defines what is fair and just, which we refer to as justice. However, when we hear the word justice, we often feel that while there are definitions, what we truly need is often not well implemented in reality. This feeling is quite strong. Additionally, how individuals perceive justice can vary greatly depending on their values, experiences, and circumstances. This is another aspect to consider. 

When discussing justice in our society, we can express it succinctly with two words: equality or freedom. When we assess whether our reasoning aligns with justice, the criteria we use will likely involve whether freedom is being protected and whether equality is being maintained. Therefore, the theory of justice according to John Rawls continues to revolve around the concepts of freedom.

Whether it is equality or freedom, the distinction depends on how we divide these concepts. It can vary between conservative and progressive views. There are various criteria that can differentiate conservatism from progressivism, but the most general and universally understood criterion is that those who value freedom more are considered conservatives, while those who place greater emphasis on equality are seen as progressives. It’s not that one side only advocates for their own stance; rather, it’s about the ratio of importance they assign to these values. Those who prioritize freedom are closer to conservatism, and those who prioritize equality are considered progressive. However, it can be confusing because the distinction between the left and the right originally stemmed from different approaches to problem-solving. The left tends to pursue radical changes, seeking to transform the current state, while the right aims to maintain existing values and gradually adapt.

People who try to reform things are often called right-wing, while conservatives are considered right-wing and progressives are seen as left-wing. However, this is based on different standards. Logically speaking, it is possible for there to be radically conservative individuals, as well as left-wing conservatives and right-wing progressives. In our country, particularly because of the existence of North Korea, there is an additional distortion. Strangely, people who are classified as progressives are often perceived as being friendly towards North Korea, while those categorized as conservatives are viewed as opposing North Korea. However, this is based on a completely different criterion. The attitude towards North Korea and one's position regarding it are separate standards. So, while it may seem that right-wing corresponds to conservatism and left-wing to progressivism and pro-North Korean sentiment, this is a generalization that does not capture the complexity of the situation.

Anything can change. It corresponds to the left wing, which values progress. Now, let’s delve a bit deeper. Those who value freedom are often proponents of evolution. The theory of evolution suggests that each species, each individual, competes with others to survive and thrive. The species that wins in this competition survives and progresses. This idea holds that those who value freedom also believe that any progress in society is akin to the evolution of species competing against one another. Economic life is also a form of competition. Therefore, when individuals compete to survive or to gain an advantage, they believe that not only will they do well, but eventually, society will also progress based on that idea. On the other hand, those who emphasize equality argue that society does not maintain itself or ensure health through competition, but rather through solidarity. Solidarity and cooperation are vital to life.

One of the characteristics that is just as important as competition is cooperation. Look at the cells that make up our lives; do they compete with neighboring cells, or do they cooperate? Look at my body as an organism; do my hands compete with my feet, or do they cooperate? The same goes for each individual. Society operates as an organic system, which means there can be competition, but fundamentally, cooperation is what matters. Solidarity is essential for us as social beings, so we live interdependently. In this context, solidarity, mutual aid, and cooperation are emphasized by those who advocate for equality. Now, where does this person stand? We will discuss that. This person, as I have indicated here, is known as a philosopher who has focused on a single area. Most others delve deeply into research and then expand to related areas.

이 사람은 처음부터 끝까지 오로지 정의만을 다루며, 대단하다는 생각이 드는 사람입니다. 이 사람의 별명은 단일 주제 철학자이며, 1921년생입니다. 프린스턴에서 철학 박사 학위를 받고, 정의란 무엇인가라는 논문을 썼습니다. 이 논문은 나중에 정의 이론으로 집대성됩니다. 그의 첫 논문은 정의를 주제로 시작되었고, 하버드 대학에서 철학과 교수로 재직한 후 보강하여 낸 책이 정의 이론입니다. 이 책은 1971년에 처음 출간되었습니다. 그 후 이 사람의 3대 저작이라고 할 수 있는 나머지 두 책이 나오는데, 1993년에 정치적 자유주의, 1999년에 만민법이 있습니다. 정치적 자유주의는 공정으로서의 정의를 사회를 통합하는 실천적인 정치 이론으로 강조하고, 만민법은 이를 세계적으로 펼칠 수 있다고 주장합니다.

Internationally applicable, there is a definition that continues to be held by people who have goods. Since he published it in 2002, John Rawls' theory of justice is relatively recent. If I were to summarize his thoughts on justice in one phrase, it would be liberal equality. Earlier, we discussed two values that coexist and compete with each other: freedom and equality. Rawls seems to have a definition that combines these two concepts. I will explain what that means now.

Rawls speaks of liberal equality, which encompasses freedom and equality. The essence of this idea is that he acknowledges the differences that arise from individuals' free choices. This is the first principle: he firmly upholds the right for individuals to make free choices. However, this is balanced with considerations of personal abilities or...

I will intervene in complaints that arise for reasons beyond control to ensure equality and achieve a fair distribution. Both must go together for it to be just; having only one is insufficient. This person's concept of justice is referred to as a liberal equality. Now, further detailing this is the content of the theory of justice. This person's thoughts on justice reflect the spirit of the French Revolution, which we refer to as liberty and equality. The tricolor flag symbolizes these concepts. Here, we see liberty, which translates to liberty, equality, which translates to equality, and the third, fraternity. This concept was transmitted to our country through Japan, and while it is referred to as fraternity, it actually conveys a sense of cooperation and solidarity. However, referring to it as fraternity might lead to some misunderstandings. Liberty and equality are difficult to reconcile, and they seem to have a somewhat conflicting relationship.

The value of solidarity is essential. It is necessary to bind that together, and I believe that this idea is reflected in the French Revolution. This becomes a thread that maintains certain thoughts in the West after modernity. The third aspect is solidarity. According to Jones's definition, it starts from solidarity. Everyone is in a relationship that reflects upon each other. Earlier, I mentioned that the organs of my body cooperate with each other; similarly, I am in solidarity and cooperation with others, which constitutes the present. This present is also connected to the past and the future. We are influenced culturally and genetically by the past, and in a way, we are in solidarity with it. This will also connect to our future. While we are in solidarity with ourselves or with each individual in our current state, we are also in solidarity with the past and the future. So, I think that these two forms of solidarity coexist simultaneously. We owe each other; we are in debt to one another.

This also symbolizes the obligation to repay debts. We have debts not only to the past but also to our contemporaries. As I mentioned earlier, we carry this dual debt, and this debt implies an obligation. Realizing justice means talking about repaying this debt. However, how do we repay it? Instead of imposing repayment externally, we do so through a social contract. This is our social contract theory. We fulfill our obligation to repay the debt rationally and voluntarily through this social contract, thereby realizing justice. We are people who carry debts, and fulfilling these obligations is justice. To whom do we owe these debts? We owe them not only to each individual in the present but also to the past and the future. This dual obligation means that repaying it properly is what we consider just.

Through the contract, we said we would repay the debt, but the essence of the contract is fairness. If it is not fair, it becomes an unequal contract. So what does fairness mean? It refers to a balance of mutual benefits and responsibilities. When the benefits and burdens of our community and society are distributed fairly among all of us, that is when we can say that justice has been realized. Now, how do we achieve this fairness? That is the key question. If we can solve how to achieve fairness, the path to justice will open up. Is fairness really possible? There are people who are more skilled and others who are less skilled; can this really be achieved while we are competing against each other? Have you heard the saying, In competition, luck plays a part? Luck is said to be the key factor, while skill is just a matter of talk. Some people even say that luck plays a significant role.

Luck governs everything. They say that a lucky person cannot be defeated by anyone. Now, when we talk about luck, there are two types: inherent luck and social luck. Everyone wants to study well, but what if they just can't? That's inherent luck. But what if they come from a poor family and can't afford private tutoring? That's social luck. Who chose to be born there? It's an unavoidable kind of luck. So, you have your inherent natural luck, and then there’s social luck. The question is how to address these, which ultimately becomes a matter of fairness. Let's consider that the luck we have is a shared asset. Only then can we solve the issue of justice. It’s not that someone with a good brain can solve it all; it's that some are born into poor families and struggle because of their inherent luck. Being born with a bad brain or in a poor family—these are the circumstances that can't be changed.

If two things are not fair, then what is the point of justice? Innate talent and social status are things I cannot control; I was born this way, so what can I do? This is just an arbitrary situation without any set basis. Neutralization, that is justice. Now, the question is how to achieve this neutralization. Ross mentions that there are three methods for neutralization. One way is to create formal equality of opportunity, another is to provide substantial equality of opportunity, and a third, which Johnson would certainly advocate, is to go a step further. However, someone once said that talent is key. If opportunities are opened up without any restrictions, anyone can reach any position; the rest is up to the individual. Trying to correct that can actually lead to distortion.

We should only open opportunities and let individuals figure out the rest on their own. Those who are not capable will have no choice but to struggle. Who chooses to be born into a poor environment? Who wants to be born in North Korea instead of America? This reflects Adam Smith's idea that if we allow freedom and let each person strive for their own benefit, the outcome will be the most favorable state of balance. There is a person named Nozick, who emphasizes freedom very strongly and is a libertarian. Helping those who lack ability can actually infringe upon those who are capable. The very act of assisting someone who lacks ability can harm another person who is more competent, so such artificial interventions should not be made. Those who emphasize freedom argue that no one has ever said not to study or to give up on self-improvement. They say it’s about skill and effort.

Talking is the first formal planning, and I will just provide the format. The rest is up to each person, whether they are smart or not, whether they were born into a wealthy family or a poor one. I believe that is their responsibility. However, there is also the perspective that we should acknowledge the social constraints and variables that are imposed on us. Formally, it can be said that everyone is given an opportunity, but this formal opportunity alone has led to monopoly, inequality, and endless competition. We should work to reduce the social imbalances and inequalities that arise from these random circumstances. The rest, such as being smart or having skills, is up to the individual. I am willing to assist with the social luck aspect. This is similar to the welfare states in the West, where people are told to compete, but only under conditions that do not excessively disadvantage them.

You are suggesting improvements, but there are various criticisms. What kind of results do we see? Is it due to social circumstances or inherent traits? It's difficult to distinguish between the two. For example, if someone scores only 50 points, is it because they are not smart, or because they were born into a poor family? It's hard to tell. So, we can't really make that distinction easily. This sounds plausible, but in reality, it becomes quite challenging. Moreover, there are arguments questioning whether it's right to approach it this way. Ultimately, the society we've built seems to be a kind of animal kingdom where everyone is competing for survival. Just relying on that is not enough; we need to supplement it with Western perspectives. This alone does not suffice; this is what we refer to as fair planning. There are indeed social factors that affect natural abilities, but I can't seem to separate them.

Social luck should be secured, but we also need to supplement the inherent luck, which is uncertain. Only then can we truly achieve fairness. To summarize, formal planning equality corresponds to laissez-faire reasoning, while substantial planning movements relate to our welfare capitalism. The equitable plan that Jones speaks of must mitigate both natural luck and social luck. The first point is that natural luck also reflects skill. The second point is that natural luck is unavoidable; however, we will work to prevent social inequalities. The third point is that we must strive to neutralize both natural and social luck. Now, the question remains: how do we alleviate natural and social luck? That is what we need to address.

We are talking about the principle of achieving balance. Now, let's move on to the second part. Imagine a situation where there are two brothers who both want to eat more pizza, so they start fighting over who gets to cut it. One says, I'll cut it! and the other replies, No, I will! Then their mom intervenes and sets a limit. She says, Okay, let the older brother cut it, but the younger brother gets to choose first. This means the older brother has no choice but to cut the pizza in a way that is fair. 

In this case, it becomes equal, right? A 50-50 split. But what did their mom say? She said, Let the older brother cut it, but let's decide who chooses first by drawing lots. Now the older brother's mind gets complicated. He thinks, I’ll cut it evenly, but that might not be enough for me. I'm the older brother; I should eat more since I'm taller and have a bigger appetite.

I need to eat more, but I ended up cutting it in an 80-20 ratio. If I lose and end up with the 20, it will be a complete disaster. I'm starving here. What should I do? Let's cut it in a 60-40 ratio. If I'm lucky and I get to choose first, I can take 60. Even if I'm unlucky and my sibling chooses first, I can still get 40. It's not like I'm starving to death; this amount is manageable. Ideally, it would be best to split it evenly, but even if I find myself in the most disadvantageous position, it’s still better to cut it in a way that makes it bearable. That's the thought process I have.

Now, there’s a second case. There’s a doctor here, a very wealthy doctor, and then there’s a part-time cashier. The doctor makes a lot of money while the cashier earns the minimum wage, which is quite unequal. So, they decided to equalize it. They set a law stating that the doctor's salary and the cashier's salary must be the same. If they establish that...

Why is everyone reluctant to become a doctor? What are they going to do, endure all that hardship? And what if there’s a medical accident? They have to attend academy classes and take exams. They could be working as clerks and earning the same salary. If that’s the case, no one will want to be a doctor, and eventually, we’ll have a society filled with clerks. In such a society, it’s impossible to receive treatment for illnesses. This is not a just society, which is why doctors' salaries need to be increased. There must be a sufficient number of doctors so that even the minimum beneficiaries, like clerks, can receive treatment and live. In this situation, even if there is inequality, if the minimum beneficiaries are in a favorable position, then that kind of inequality is better. We should try to find that path. It’s not just good to split a pizza 50-50; if needed, I could eat a bit more by splitting it 60-40.

무엇이든지 제비뽑기에서 지더라도 그렇게 배를 고파하는 상황은 아닌, 이런 정도의 어떤 상황을 만들어내야 가장 정의로운 걸 것 같아요. 여기까지 괜찮아요. 그런데 이제 이런 생각을 하게 되죠. 나는 많은 사람들을 치료하는 의사가 되고 싶어요. 다들 그러면 어떻게 해야 할까요? 여기서 중요한 것은 제비뽑기를 할 때 부정이 개입해서는 안 된다는 점이에요. 눈을 대충 가리면 안 되죠. 또 하나는, 두 번째 상황에서도 누구나 다 고소득 의사가 되고 싶어 하는 이 상황을 어떻게 할 것이냐는 것입니다. 당신은 뭐가 되고 싶습니까? 의사가 되고 싶습니까? 고소득자가 되고 싶습니까? 그러려면 내가 지금 의사가 될지 아니면 다른 직업을 가질지 모르는 상태여야 해요. 이걸 정해야 하죠. 내가 의사라는 걸 알면, 의사에게 높은 보상을 받기 위해 선을 걷겠죠. 자, 당신이 의사인지 아닌지 모르고 있다면, 어떻게 할래요?

This is how I would respond: If I were to have power, would I walk the line where I could live comfortably and receive the necessary treatment? To do this, I need to not know whether I am a doctor or a patient. I have to be blindfolded, completely covering my eyes as if shrouded in a veil, and I must draw lots. I need to establish criteria without knowing whether you are a doctor or a patient. This is what John Rawls refers to as the veil of ignorance. To create a fair procedure that everyone agrees upon, one must wear the veil, blindfold themselves, and draw lots. The baseline must be established without knowing whether you are a doctor or a patient. Any talents or social advantages, such as innate luck or social fortune, must be excluded as if one were wearing a veil. Only then can we create a situation where, even if the worst outcomes occur, it is still the best possible scenario.

This person talks about an excellent and ingenious idea that is shrouded in the veil of ignorance. Let's set that aside for now. In courts or institutions that deal with fairness and justice, there is often a statue of a blindfolded goddess symbolizing this concept. I believe that in a state of ignorance, the judge must not know who the defendant or the plaintiff is in order to make a fair judgment. The Canadian federal court has even established a statue that depicts the goddess of justice wearing a veil. This means that the veil of ignorance must be present. The key point here is how effectively the veil of ignorance operates. Therefore, the criteria for justice should ideally be based on this. Now, what happens when we wear the veil of ignorance? Will we minimize or maximize extremes? There might be someone thinking, Well, let's just take a walk on Earth and see.

Is there anyone who would do this? If it's pizza, then I would do it. Oh, if I eat, I’ll go for the large size. If I don't eat, then it's fine, but if I do eat, I can eat a hundred slices. This is possible in the case of pizza, but when it comes to your entire life, you can't just bet everything on it. You can't bet everything for your descendants either. When I become the minimum beneficiary, I will try to find the best possible methods, but if I have to use a minimum strategy, I will still aim for the maximum. Even if I become the minimum, that will be the best option. Even if I end up being a door, I will still manage to survive. Even if I later become someone who chooses a lottery, I will choose a state where I have something to eat. The important thing is the principle of ignorance. So theoretically, the principles that form this are as follows: First, let's ensure equal freedom. Earlier, we talked about freedom and equality, right? So, let's prioritize ensuring equal freedom. Freedom of thought, conscience, press, assembly, elections, and property ownership should all be guaranteed.

모든 사람에게 똑같은 자유를 보장해 주자. 그 외에 나머지 불평등, 불균등하게 하는 방법은 아까 어떻게 한다고 했는가? 최소수에게 최대치를 제공해 주는 방식으로 불평등을 만들어내자. 불평등은 이러한 조건에서만 가능하도록 하자. 기회는 균등하게 하고, 다시 말해서 어떤 직업이나 직책의 기회뿐만 아니라 삶의 기회까지도 균등해야 한다는 생각을 가지고, 가장 부유한 사람에게 편익이 가는 방식으로 구분 선을 그으면, 그게 바로 가장 공정한 사회가 될 것이다. 그러려면 무죄 배를 확실히 씌워야 한다는 것이다. 그런데 여기서 보면, 아까 제 1원칙, 자유의 원칙에서 보면 사상, 양심, 언론, 집회, 이런 것들이 실제로 롤스가 열거하고 있는 자유의 모습들이다. 그런데 자본주의적 시장의 자유 같은 부분은 빠져 있다. 생산수단을 누가 가질 것이냐, 생산물을 어떻게 나눌 것인지에 대한 부분이 필요하다.

Inheritance and gifts, how will we approach these issues? This part is missing, and it is not an oversight by the person; they intentionally left it out. This is a second issue that needs to be addressed here. The way to share the economic outcomes of capitalism should be done in a different manner. Now, this person establishes principles for envisioning a just society. This is the content we have. What do you think about John Rawls' view of justice? It sounds plausible, but if you think about it for a moment, how can I put a veil of ignorance over myself? Just because I cover myself with the veil of ignorance, I won't forget who I am at that moment. So, is this actually possible? It sounds reasonable in theory, and the logic is coherent, but I have this feeling of doubt about its feasibility. Now, I want to discuss that. The third part is about the role that justice plays.

I am a philosopher who emphasizes the concept of justice throughout my life. Earlier, I was referred to as a philosopher of a singular theme, focusing solely on justice. The beginning of my book on justice states: If the foremost virtue of thought is truth, then justice is the highest virtue of social institutions. If truth is deemed the most important in thought, then justice holds the utmost importance in society. From the very first sentence, I discuss justice. Just as any theory, no matter how political or concise, must be rejected if it is not true, so too must laws or institutions, no matter how efficient, be discarded if they are unjust. The highest virtues in human life are truth and justice, and they are very demanding. Now, I will clarify the concept of justice, and thus, I begin my theory on justice. Ultimately, I hold a very high value for justice, arguing that a society where wealthy individuals assist the least advantaged is necessary.

He achieved a remarkable accomplishment by logically proving his theories and is regarded as the person who established a modern ethical framework on his own. However, one might wonder about its practicality. The idea of the veil of ignorance is truly brilliant, but how can it be applied? I would like to discuss this further. Ultimately, what John Rawls talks about is a liberal conception of equality that integrates the ideals of liberty and equality while establishing the principle of justice. Thus, we see that the liberalism he advocates prioritizes certain freedoms as its foundational principle, while also incorporating the critiques raised by socialists. This seems to be a wonderful synthesis that harmonizes two distinct values. Additionally, one of his key strengths is that he considered the least advantaged individuals, promoting welfare in a direction that benefits those who are most disadvantaged.

If we talk about complaints, I expressed gratitude in the form of discussing freedom, ownership, and equality. It seems like I accepted opinions from both conservatives and progressives, but as a result, I could be criticized by both sides. For instance, I could be criticized for saying that intelligent people are being unfairly treated or for being told that my advocacy for freedom is hindering perfect equality. I think this person embodies both potential criticisms.

The biggest issue is how to apply the veil of ignorance in John Rawls' theory of justice. If the veil is lifted, everything collapses. But does this assumption align with reality? Finding a way to make people unaware of their gender, race, wealth, abilities, or status—whether they are modern individuals or people from the future—is a challenge.

Is there a possibility that someone, in a favorable position, would say, Oh, I'll write this because they find the idea of the veil of ignorance to be amazing? When I think about this, I might feel a bit of despair. Another consideration is how much of a veil should be applied; there must be practical issues involved. For instance, how much should we cover? To what extent should we include things within the scope of the veil? There are issues regarding the width and thickness of the veil. If we move into real situations, I wonder how this would actually play out. Ultimately, the question is whether the theory of justice has any realism. Could it be that the reason we struggle with this is that we lack a theory of justice? Or is it that we are missing something else? This leads to thoughts about the veil of ignorance and principles, perhaps like a pizza.

I explained that sharing food and ensuring that my younger sibling does not die is important, but is that enough? There needs to be a will to execute it. Without training and accumulating my efforts, that won't happen. Just memorizing Jones's theory of justice doesn't mean justice will be realized. There needs to be a will to actualize it; if my moral thoughts are not firm, it could just be a theory that operates separately. That's why Kant is necessary. This brings to mind Kant's critique of practical reason, which should complement this. I feel that understanding what justice is and repeating this brilliant idea of the veil of ignorance does not mean justice will be realized. Without my moral preparation to realize it, it becomes useless.

I felt that it seems like even if one reduces their share a little, having an interest in the principles of justice and considering the least advantaged, like the sibling mentioned earlier, and being considerate of the clerk, reflects a sense of justice. When there is moral rationality, it seems that this self-interested calculation, as discussed in the theory, and moral rationality must coexist for justice to be realized. Nevertheless, while reading John Rawls' theory of justice, we can repeatedly feel that there is something impressive about it. Ideas like the veil of ignorance and the guarantee of maximum benefits for the least advantaged are attractive. Although it may be difficult to apply these concepts in reality, they can provide a standard. Now, let’s say a bill is being proposed for welfare, and we are judging it with Rawls' theory in mind.

I think we can judge this based on whether they are acting in their own interest. When considering this, a standard arises: Oh, this seems to be a conflict of interest. Or, This is too based on meritocracy. So, one of John Rawls' achievements, in my opinion, is that it opens a way to improve meritocracy. What is meritocracy? It's the idea that it's only natural for capable people to reap a lot of rewards, which is a fundamental philosophy of neoliberalism that is currently creating inequality for us. But then, how do we calculate this? I believe John Rawls' theory of justice provides us with a very effective framework for thought. Therefore, I think the notion that it has opened a path to overcome meritocracy, according to Rawls' theory of justice, is significant.

I believe this is the greatest achievement. Things like innate talent or social status are not something we created; they are things that were given to us by chance. We should manage these as shared resources and consider them as common property. Only then can we open the path to overcoming the injustices that meritocracy brings. If we don't think this way, we end up saying that luck is skill, and we all start to judge others for their lack of academic success. 

Inheritance of wealth, intelligence, and all such attributes cannot be perfectly equal, but there should exist a principle of differentiation that aligns with John Rawls' principle of difference. If we forget the perspective that the maximum benefit should go to the least advantaged, we are entering a jungle. We need to understand that inequality can only be permitted when it conforms to Rawls' principle of difference.

The path to improvement is open. John North is a wonderful person who has opened that path. This is the feeling I get. So, if you want to know about the contents of this book on meritocracy, it is very good. It is a book that challenges the illusion of fairness, asking, Who says you can't study? Therefore, I highly recommend this book. It is very much connected to John North's ideas. I am going to add a brief introduction to the book later. In Michael Sandel's The Illusion of Fairness, it states that conservatism is based on meritocracy. According to this view, inequality is bound to occur based on ability, and this cannot be avoided. The idea is that meritocracy allows for free competition, meaning that those with ability will inevitably have an advantage. That kind of inequality is only natural.

The idea is that we shouldn't keep trying to change it. This is what neoliberalism is about: providing equal opportunities, allowing people to fully demonstrate their abilities, and distributing results based on those abilities, which would bring about fairness. We're talking about Adam Smith here; in that sense, meritocracy is a very admirable ideology. So, what's the problem? This is based on the philosophical foundation of conservatism. However, we need to examine two points here. First, can we really achieve this ideal meritocracy? Is it possible to provide fair opportunities and guarantee equal ability to demonstrate those skills? In the past, people from rural areas could get into top universities in Seoul, but now it has become almost impossible. Is it because people living in the countryside have suddenly become less intelligent? We're giving opportunities fairly, with everyone taking the same college entrance exam and submitting similar personal statements and activity logs.

Even if we try to be fair, it still doesn't work. The ground is already unevenly formed. If we just talk about meritocracy without addressing that issue, we won't solve the problem. Now, let's assume that meritocracy has been perfectly realized. Would that society be just? What kind of society would it be? It would be one where everything has been perfectly given, but there would still be strong and weak individuals. The strong would receive 50,000, while the weak would feel a sense of defeat, thinking, I had all the opportunities, but my failure is entirely my fault. Is such a society, where some thrive and others struggle, really fair? Unless we resolve these two issues, we cannot claim that meritocracy is just. The first question is whether meritocracy can provide the same opportunities for everyone. Are we really doing that now? What about the talents I possess?

Is the success I have achieved solely due to my own efforts, or is it perhaps a product of both misfortune and fortune? These are the kinds of thoughts I need to consider. Success is not guaranteed solely by effort. Of course, effort is necessary, but there are many factors, including luck and social systems, that also play a role. Ultimately, success or failure is the result of a comprehensive combination of these elements. 

If someone is born with high talent and intelligence, the societal systems that allow them to succeed are also a matter of social luck. If they were born into a society that does not permit such opportunities, they might not have been able to showcase their abilities, despite their talent. In a society based on ability and achievement, class distinctions arise, and those at the top find ways to maintain their advantages. This is what we are currently witnessing through institutional and legal means. Those who are left behind in this system often find themselves with no way forward.

그렇게 만들어져 있기 때문에 이런 상태에서 이 메리토크라시가 작용할 수 있을까? 과연 모두에게 같은 기회가 제공된다고 할 수 있을까? 형식적으로 법이 이렇게 다 있고, 자, 나 읽어 봐, 이렇게 했다고 해서 그건 아니다, 이거죠. 그래서 하위 소득 계층에서 지금 상위권에 배약하는 일이 좀 어려운 일이라는 거죠. 갑자기 그 사람들이 나빠진 건 아닌 거야. 우리가 진짜 공평한 기회를 보장해 줬잖아라고 하는데, 진짜 공평하다고 따져 봐야 하나? 노력과 재능만으로 상류층으로 올라갈 수 있나? 지금 사다리가 굳건하게 서 있나? 계층 이동의 가능성이 열려 있나? 그런 거 생각해 보면, 일단 첫 번째로 능력주의 자체가 지금 평평한 바탕에서 있지 않다는 문제가 있고, 또 하나는 아까 얘기하는 거야. 그게 평평한 바탕에서 있다고 해도, 그게 과연 정의로운 사회인가? 능력주의는 모든 것을 개인의 책임으로 돌립니다.

I've opened all the opportunities for you. No one has ever prevented anyone from taking the test. After that, the remaining successes and failures are all personal responsibilities. The winners will be filled with arrogance, thinking that God is on their side, and that they succeeded because of their own efforts. This will make them question what they did wrong to end up in failure, creating a sense of contempt towards others. However, this raises the question of whether this is a just society. In a meritocratic system, failure becomes an individual's responsibility. This brings arrogance to the winners and resentment and anger to the losers. Such a situation is not a just society. When it comes to management tests, the tensions and conflicts between different classes, generations, and genders become evident, leading us to reflect on ourselves. These two major aspects of meritocracy raise the question of whether we can truly achieve equality and clarity within this system.

The question of whether it can be realized is also a significant issue. If the two problems of defining and addressing meritocracy are not resolved, the criticism of meritocracy will only grow stronger. In this context, John Rawls' ideas are very effective. Rawls provided an alternative perspective: even if a system guarantees fair opportunities and completely compensates for disadvantages due to class differences, that alone cannot be called justice. The difference in talent, which is essentially a matter of inherited luck, cannot be morally justified any more than class differences or social luck. This also needs to be guaranteed. We must also examine grievances arising from differences in abilities. Only then can we achieve a just society. However, this does not mean giving undue advantages to talented individuals; rather, it involves establishing a distribution system where the fruits of success go to the least advantaged. When all of this is achieved, we will have a truly just society.

A just society can be said to be one where justice is realized. It seems like this is what we are discussing. Recently, we participated in a community service project. The way we view this is also important. Who has ever said to those people not to work hard? Why should someone with a healthy body not help others? I earned this money through hard work, so why should I be forced to help? This creates a different kind of inequality, and it does not make our society warmer. People have inherent advantages or social advantages; how can I help those in need in a way that enhances their well-being? That is the essence of nobless oblige. The person who made me think this way is John Rawls, and the book that presents this logical flow of thought is A Theory of Justice.

Reading the book Theory of Justice is very difficult. The content is vast, and the writing style, which presents various Western examples, feels unfamiliar and can be hard to understand. However, if you follow the core ideas, it is a book that leaves you in awe, and the philosopher himself was remarkable. The philosopher we discussed is quite different, unique in his approach, and his ideas seem to resonate with the stories of my surroundings. We examined a very contemporary philosopher. That's all.

존 롤스 - 『정의론』ㅣ자유냐 평등이냐ㅣ자유주의적 평등ㅣ운(運)의 중립화ㅣ정의의 원칙ㅣ무지의 베일ㅣ능력주의(Meritocracy)의 극복ㅣ정의론의 현실성

존 롤스 - 『정의론』ㅣ자유냐 평등이냐ㅣ자유주의적 평등ㅣ운(運)의 중립화ㅣ정의의 원칙ㅣ무지의 베일ㅣ능력주의(Meritocracy)의 극복ㅣ정의론의 현실성

스크립트