All approaches in political science actually try to describe what society deserves even though it is a field related to philosophy. John Rawls - the important political philosopher at the end of the 20th century was almost the first, after 100 years of anti-philosophical perception in the social sciences and not dealing with these questions, to say that the big basic questions should be asked what is proper society? Rawls writes the book "A Theory of Justice" in which he describes the principles of justice of the proper society, and in doing so he succeeds in arousing around him a broad discourse around these questions.
Rawls advance a perception of justice as fairness - a concept that assumes that human beings are free and intelligent beings equal to each other who together decide to advance their interests, unite together and accept the principles of justice that form the basis for creating social cooperation. Everyone who engages in social cooperation chooses the principles According to which the basic rights and obligations of the individuals in the company will be granted.
Justice as fairness is the original state of man - in which each person participates in a discussion of the principles of justice (and not of common values because there can be no broad consensus) out of thought of what is good and worthy in his eyes In society and what will be his fate, what is his power, what is his wisdom and therefore man's participation in the discussion of the principles of justice is behind the veil of ignorance (no one knows what his fate will be in the end) - thus no one is deprived or gaining an advantage over the other.
Once human beings choose the initial principles of justice they will choose a constitution and a legislature and from there on and these choices will be based on general agreement on the part of everyone because everything will be according to the principles of justice set in the initial situation.
Rawls presents two different principles that he believes constitute the basic principles of justice:
1. liberty and equality in the allocation of basic rights and obligations. Each person works for himself as long as it does not infringe on the right of the other.
2. cultural and economic differences are justified only when they yield compensatory benefits to all and especially to the disadvantaged in society. And so here there is no room for the intervention of institutions because the good of the many will usually compensate the weak - but only the weakest.