As highly influential contemporary political philosophers, John Rawls and G.A. Cohen have each developed distinct principles of justice centered on distributive justice. Rawls, grounded in a liberalist standpoint, focuses on the basic structure of society and follows a constructivist theoretical approach. This leads to a principle of justice concerned with the design of social order, presenting as a regulatory rule, and attempts to construct a procedure for justice. In contrast, Cohen, rooted in a socialist standpoint, emphasizes individual choices and adheres to an intuitionist theoretical approach. Consequently, his principle of justice focuses on egalitarian relations between people, manifests as a fundamental principle, and seeks to establish a ethos of justice. Both philosophies demonstrate a concern for disadvantaged groups, yet they share characteristics of abstraction and limitation due to their detachment from concrete socio-historical conditions. A thorough critical reflection on the theoretical differences between Rawls and Cohen, and a summary of the strengths and limitations of their respective principles of justice, hold significant reference value for exploring practical pathways to achieving fairness and justice.
Z Wang (Fri,) studied this question.