Understanding obligations in the context of J. Rawls’s theory of justice

Abstract

The article is devoted to the disclosure of the content of the category of obligations according to J. Rawls’s theory of justice. The author emphasizes that in general, the American philosopher divides them into natural duties and obligations. Both groups are requirements for individuals. Obligations include honesty and faithfulness, natural duties are divided into positive and negative. The positive duties include: maintaining justice; mutual assistance; mutual respect. While negative natural duties are: not to harm and not to cause trouble to the innocent.
 The thinker calls the fundamental natural duty the duty of justice, which is to obey and uphold the just institutions to which man is attached. The natural duty of justice binds citizens as a whole without requiring freewill actions. The principles of justice, according to J. Rawls, provide a way to distribute the rights and obligations of the main sociopolitical institutions and determine the proper distribution of wealth and forms of social cooperation. The final version of these principles provides the first and second rules of priority as a result of their definition. The first rule is the priority of freedom: fundamental freedoms can be restricted only in the name of general freedom. The second rule of priority is the priority of justice over efficiency and welfare.
 In addition, the American scholar focuses on outlining special aspects of obligations in the light of political theory, which include the issue of submission to unjust laws or policies, civil disobedience, rejection of beliefs.
 The author of the study concludes that, in general, the concept of obligations according to Rawls’s theory of justice is based on the desire to find the common good for all members of society, covers elements of social contract, and has the attribute of reciprocity.