“One practicable aim of justice as fairness is to provide an acceptable philosophical and moral basis for democratic institutions and thus to address the question of how the claims of liberty and equality are to be understood.”

One of the most enduring problems in theories of democracy theory is to reconcile the seemingly competing claims of freedom and equality, as freedom permits the exercise of talents that are unequal among citizens. Rawls is seeking a logically precise definition of justice that resolves the apparent tension between freedom and equality, so that citizens do not need to be alike in all respects for each to have the ability to employ their abilities toward the betterment of themselves and society.

“The role of a political conception of justice [...] is not to say exactly how these questions are to be settled, but to set out a framework of thought with which they can be approached.”

Rawls insists that his definition of justice is strictly political, meaning that it pertains only to the distribution of social power and the design of legal institutions. It does not require that citizens believe anything in particular, only that their public conduct adheres to a common set of principles which they have decided is best for their functioning as a collective. In all other aspects, they are free to pursue their own understanding of what is good.

“In what sense are citizens regarded as equal persons? Let’s say they are regarded as equal in that they are all regarded as having to the essential minimum degree the moral powers necessary to engage in social cooperation over a complete life and take part in society as equal citizens.”

Equality is necessary in a democracy, yet difficult to define since people are manifestly unequal in all manner of natural and socially constructed ways. Rawls accordingly defines equality not in terms of a person’s attributes, or even their rights, but rather the ability to contribute to society without any undue hindrances.