The first idea explored within the Fairness and Nature: When Worlds Collide course from the University of Leeds on Future Learn is that of Rawls’ principles of justice. I wasn’t sure what to expect of this course when I signed up to it but this was definitely an appropriate and thought provoking start to the course.

What would we want society’s ideas of justice to be like if we did not know our place within that society? Would we bias the principles of justice towards one sector of society and hope we were in the portion that benefited disproportionately or would we instead opt for principles that allowed for equality? Rawls looked to answer this.

Rawls believed that principles of justice could only be determined if we were hidden behind a veil of ignorance to prevent bias towards themselves when devising the principles:

no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.

From this, two principles of justice would be adopted by those behind this veil. These are:

1. Equality before the law and equal opportunities for all.
2. If inequality is present, the benefits enjoyed by those who are better off should also run to the least advantaged.

It’s easy to see how these principles have influenced certain aspects of UK society and politics within the 20th century (even if they are very close to failing to exist in the UK today) but it is slightly harder to see how they fit in to how we manage the environment. The example given in the course was that of the Kyoto Protocol which contains a requirement for countries historically responsible for the majority of the emissions to reduce these while allowing polluting countries who do not have the same historical record to increase their emissions.

Similarly, the principles could be applied to the problem of diminishing resources and the need for a transition to a steady-state economy – why should over-consuming countries be allowed to retain their unsustainable patterns of consumption when resources are required in less developed countries to provide basics such as education, health care and food? Why should others be denied these opportunities? Did colonialism and ownership of resources by companies from other economies deny some countries the same opportunities to develop through lack of resources? Did some countries only develop to the level that they are because they took resources from outside of their borders at the expense of others and the environment?