In this paper we claim that Rawls’s theory is compatible with the absence of rectification of extremely important historical injustices within a given society. We hold that adding a new principle to justice-as-fairness may amend this problem. There are four possible objections to our claim: First, that historical rectification is not required by justice. Second, that, even when historical rectification is a matter of justice, it is not a matter of distributive justice, so that Rawls’s theory is justified in leaving it unaddressed. Third, that dealing with historical injustice is outside of the scope of ideal theory, so that even when historical rectification is required by justice, Rawls’s theory starts with the assumption that no such historical injustice has occurred. Fourth, that while historical injustice is within the scope of Rawls’s theory, there is no need for further principles of justice to deal with it, so that the correct regulation of the principles of justice-as-fairness would ensure the rectification of all relevant historical injustices of a particular society. While we offer several arguments against the first and second objections, we address the last two at length and show that both fail.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Abdel-Nour, Farid. 2003. National responsibility. Political Theory 31: 693–719.
Abizadeh, Arash. 2004. Historical truth, national myths, and liberal democracy: On the coherence of liberal nationalism. The Journal of Political Philosophy 12: 291–313.
Agger, Inger, and Søren Jensen. 1996. Trauma and healing under state terrorism. London: Zed books.
Backer, David, et al. 1995. Therapy with the victims of political repression in Chile: The challenges of social reparations. In Transitional justice: How emerging democracies reckon with former regimes, ed. Neil Kritz, 583–592. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace.
Boettcher, James. 2009. Race, ideology, and ideal theory. Metaphilosophy 40: 259–337.
Borneman, John. 2005. Public apologies as performative redress. SAIS Review of International Affairs 25: 53–65.
Buchanan, Allen. 2004. Justice, legitimacy, and self-determination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Butt, Daniel. 2009. Rectifying international injustice: Principles of compensation and restitutions between nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Greiff, Pablo (ed.). 2006. The handbook of reparation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elster, Jon. 2004. Closing the books: Transitional theory in historical perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fuller, Lisa. 2012. Burdened societies and transitional justice. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15: 369–386.
Gledhill, James. 2012. Rawls and realism. Social Theory and Practice 38: 55–82.
Grandin, Greg & Thomas Miller (eds.). 2007. Truth commissions: State terror, history and memory. Radical History Review 97:1–10.
Hamber, Brandon. 2010. Transforming societies after political violence: Truth, reconciliation, and mental Health. New York: Springer.
James, Aaron. 2005. Constructing justice from existing practice: Rawls and the status-quo. Philosophy and Public Affairs 33: 281–316.
Korsgaard, Christine. 1996. Creating the kingdom of ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kutz, Christopher. 2004. Justice in reparations: The cost of memory and the value of talk. Philosophy and Public Affairs 32: 277–312.
Lawford-Smith, Holly. 2010. Debate: Ideal theory—a reply to Valentini. The Journal of Political Philosophy 18: 357–368.
Lykes, M.Brinton, and Marcie Mersky. 2006. Reparations and mental health: Psychological interventions towards healing, human agency, and rethreading social realities. In The handbook of reparations, ed. Pablo de Greiff, 589–622. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mason, Andrew. 2010. Rawlsian theory and the circumstances of politics. Political Theory 38: 658–683.
Meyer, Lukas. 2006. Reparation and symbolic restitution. Journal of Social Philosophy 37: 406–422.
Mills, Charles. 2005. Ideal theory as ideology. Hypatia 20: 165–184.
Rawls, John. 1999a. A theory of justice, revised edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. 1999b. The law of peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as fairness. A restatement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. 2005. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Robeyns, Ingrid. 2008. Ideal theory in theory and practice. Social Theory and Practice 34: 341–342.
Sen, Amartya. 2009. The idea of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sher, George. 1981. Ancient wrongs and modern rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs 10: 3–17.
Sher, George. 1997. Approximate justice: Studies in non-ideal theory. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Shue, Henry. 1975. Liberty and self-respect. Ethics 85: 195–203.
Simmons, John. 2010. Ideal and non-ideal theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs 38: 5–36.
Stemplowska, Zofia. 2008. What’s ideal about ideal theory? Social Theory and Practice 34: 319–340.
Taylor, Robert. 2009. Rawlsian affirmative action. Ethics 119: 476–506.
Thompson, Janna. 2001. Historical injustice and reparation: Justifying the claims of descendants. Ethics 112: 114–131.
Valentini, Laura. 2009. On the apparent paradox of ideal theory. The Journal of Political Philosophy 17: 332–355.
Verdeja, Ernesto. 2006. Reparations in democratic transitions. Res Publica 12: 115–136.
Verdeja, Ernesto. 2009. Unchopping a tree: Reconciliation in the aftermath of political violence. Temple: Temple University Press.
Waldron, Jeremy. 1992. Superseding historic injustice. Ethics 103: 4–28.
Walker, Margaret. 2006. Moral repair: Reconstructing moral relationships after wrongdoing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiens, David. 2012. Prescribing institutions without ideal theory. The Journal of Political Philosophy 20: 45–70.
Zalaquett, José. 1999. Truth, justice and reconciliation: Lessons for the international community. In Comparative peace processes in Latin America, ed. Cynthia Arnson, 341–362. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
We would like to thank Elizabeth Anderson, Luis Camacho, Robert Jubb, Claudio López-Guerra, Catherine Lu, Veronique Munoz-Dardé, Carlos Pereda, Tom Porter, Faviola Rivera, Laura Valentini, Leif Wenar, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this paper.
About this article
Cite this article
Espindola, J., Vaca, M. The Problem of Historical Rectification for Rawlsian Theory. Res Publica 20, 227–243 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-014-9244-z
- Historical injustice
- Ideal/non-ideal theory
- Rawlsian theory
- Fair equality of opportunity
- Transitional justice