Caroline Ey POL 304 Professor Shaw Review 3 5/8/14 I. As one of the interpretations of the second principle of justice as fairness, Rawls argues that “democratic equality” is the best avenue for citizens to realize their life projects, as meeting of the difference principle with fair equality of opportunity. The second principle states that “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all” (Rawls, 53). With an unequal distribution of situations, the purpose of society “is not to establish and secure the more attractive prospects of those better off unless doing so is to the advantage of those less fortunate” (Rawls, 65). The principles of justice are in place to ensure that the “assignment of rights and duties” through the basic structure of society justly distribute both the “benefits and burdens” of social and economic advantages (Rawls, 47). Drawing from the difference principle, inequalities in wealth and income can be justified if all parties benefit as a result. In comparison to the alternative interpretations of natural liberty and liberal equality, a system of democratic equality holds to “pure procedural justice…[although] this still leaves too much to social and natural contingency” (Rawls, 69). Given this notion, however, the difference principle is fully “compatible with the principle of efficiency” (Rawls, 69). When tying the difference principle with fair equality of opportunity, it ensures that while individuals may have drastically different situations, the situations themselves are justified as long as the structure serves to “improve the expectations of the least advantaged... ... middle of paper ... ...uld be in Nozick’s framework (Rawls, 76). For Rawls, the purpose of society is to minimize disagreement and generate a cooperative social order that benefits the least well off. He continues on to argue that under Nozick’s framework it would compel individuals to join societies, making it unfair to individuals. For Rawl’s the Nozickian framework is naïve, blissfully assuming that individuals will be inclined to peacefully coexist if they are given opportunity to pursue their own life projects. Nozick’s arguments in this claim are fair more convincing, as it allows individuals the freedom to utilize their natural endowments to their own benefit without complicating them with a necessity to aid the worse off in society. Beyond Rawl’s principle of redistribution towards the least well off, there is no principle beyond addressing the situation of burdened individuals.
Daniels states that by not having access to adequate health care, disease and disability affects people’s “normal species functioning”, thus disabling the “equality of opportunity” portion of Rawls’ principle. Daniels claims that the legal right to adequate health care enables people to keep their “normal range of opportunities.” In this way Daniels’ assertion ensures that the “fair equality of opportunity” component stays intact by revitalizing the disabled and diseased. Hence, the right to basic health care resources for all ensures the “fair equality” portion of Rawls’ principle. Daniels’ defends his claim of the right to health care on the basis of the fundamental theory
In the treatise named “Leviathan” published in 1651, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) proposed an early variant of equality among men that inequality did not exist in natural condition, meaning everyone is born equal; however, inequality's existence was the result of civil laws (Hobbes & Gaskin, 1998). In this sense, inequality is generally referred to social inequality which is characterized by the existence of unequal opportunities and rewards for different social positions or statuses within a group or society; plus, this negative social phenomenon contains structured and recurrent patterns of unequal distributions of goods, wealth, opportunities, rewards, and punishments (Crossman, 2012).
Rawls’ thinks that the modern liberty is the kind of freedom modern individuals are able to enjoy. He states that there are two things that are appropriate to democratic society, and they are justice and tolerance. Rawls presents us with two principles of justice that the citizens have to follow in order to be truly free; they are equality of rights and inequality benefits least advantaged member of society. In order to be completely free and exist in the society all you need to do is follow these two basic and most important rule. Furthermore, Rawls mentions that there is so much diversity in our democratic society, that we are more of society of strangers. You are free to do whatever you please and free to take responsibility for yourself, you are your own validation. With that he also brought out, since the institutions follow the two principles of justice, citizens can put their trust in them. In Rawls sense, as long as we follow the two principles of justice then, citizens are completely free to do whatever they wish to
In the Theory of Justice by John Rawls, he defines civil disobedience,” I shall begin by defining civil disobedience as a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”.
I will begin this paper by making clear that this is a critique of Rawls and his difference principle and not an attempt at a neutral analysis. I have read the Theory of Justice and I have found it wanting in both scope and realism. The difference principle proposed by Rawls, his second principle is the focus of my critique. While this paper will not focus solely on the second principle, all analysis done within this essay are all targeted towards the scope of influence that Rawls treats the second principle with.
Arguments about fairness and justice have been up for debate for centuries. "What do we deserve?", a question that has many individuals raising their brows to their efforts in their pursuit to achieve their goals. If it is said that we are all placed on an equal standard why are there individuals struggling to stay afloat? In Arora’s essay, he examines three forms of economic modals of social justices that question that idea of why the prosperous or the impecunious "deserve" their position or stature in life. Out of all of Arora's economic modals that he presents the Meritocratic System is the fairest because it gives everyone a fighting chance.
Out of this experiment Rawls provides us with two basic principles of rules of: 1) every person should have equal opportunity to access a justice system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all and; 2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both; a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged offices and b) positions opportunities should be made available to all under fair and equality conditions (242).... ... middle of paper ... ... I would opt against some other economic society, not knowing whether or not it would satisfy the conditions of providing the best opportunity for the least in my society.
Discussing patterned theories, Nozick is of the opinion that such principles deny people's basic rights because they interfere with people’s right to take part in free and fair transactions if they wish to. A Patterned theory is one that define specific principles that govern the distribution of wealth “Along with some natural dimensions”. And to maintain such a pattern, an individual’s rights to liberty have to be violated. *******So no one can forcibly transfer wealth from one individual to another. Hence, any principle that follows a pattern of distribution of wealth any is inherently unjust. So according to Nozick any patterned theory leads to injustice as they infringe upon an individual's basic rights of liberty and freedom. However, Nozick believes that the only instance where someone's wealth can be forcibly ta...
With the issue of income inequality becoming more salient in present day politics, it has been argued that the United States is doing little to ensure equality of opportunity. Many economists today point to low levels of intergenerational social and economic mobility as evidence of these trends. Philosopher John Rawls’ second principle of justice states that inequalities can exist in society as long as they improve the general wellbeing of the least well off members of society. However, current inequalities in income and opportunities in the United States have been said to violate Rawls second principle of justice, because of their inability to provide the least well off members of society with an improvement in wellbeing. In this paper, I will delineate the argument underlying Rawls second principle, as well as its background, conditions and requirements and justify why Rawls would be correct to assume that current inequalities in income and opportunity in the United States are unjust in regards to the wellbeing of citizens.
Individual liberty is the freedom to act and believe as one pleases. It is a widely controversial issue when it comes to the power of the government policing over individual�s freedoms. In this paper, I am going to compare two well known philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls. In part one, I will explain the political and social positions taken by each philosopher. I will explain how Thomas Hobbes is associated with the �social contract theory,� and how John Rawls� theory of government is a �theory of justice.� In doing so, I will describe their different viewpoints on the government and its power over the people. In Part two, I will describe the differences between Hobbes and Rawls. I will argue that Rawls position on the government is the most reasonable, and I will explain why I believe so. In part three, I will explain my own theory and viewpoint with the example of sex laws, including prostitution. With this example, I will tell how and why I believe individual liberty is important. In part four, I will explain how someone might disagree with my position. I will explain how conservative individuals would argue that the government should regulate sexual activity to protect the greater good of society. Finally, I will conclude with discussing the power of the government and individual liberties in today�s society.
John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice holds that a rational, mutually disinterested individual in the Original Position and given the task of establishing societal rules to maximise their own happiness throughout life, is liable to choose as their principles of justice a) guaranteed fundamental liberties and b) the nullification of social and economic disparities by universal equality of opportunities, which are to be of greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society , . Rawls’ system of societal creation has both strengths and weaknesses, but is ultimately sound.
Nozick agrees with the liberty principle proposed by Rawls, but he disagrees with the equality principle and the fashion in which resources are distributed. I believe the historical principle of distribution is one strength of Nozick’s ideas. The historical principle of distribution states that the justice of any distribution does not depend on how closely it resembles any form of an equality pattern but how the distribution came about (959). I also agree with the theory that people are entitled to anything they acquired voluntarily and anything that is transferred to them voluntarily (958). Nozick does not agree with redistribution of wealth because taking resources from one person to benefit others is not necessarily voluntary. The biggest weaknesses of Nozick’s idea of equality comes from the idea that taxation and federally funded programs would be unjust forcing everything to be owned privately. This creates the most issues because people are self-interested and the virtue of market may not create the balance which Nozick proposed. Public school systems and public roads being deemed illegitimate would create issues with access. Also, making taxation illegal would make it difficult to have services like a police force, fire department, court system, or penal system because they would have to be paid by the individual directly. The police and court systems could become corrupt
While Nozick’s vision of a society based around protecting each individual’s freedom and right to self-ownership seems enticing, it would actually lead to the exact kind of captive life that he seeks to avoid. Governments are not the only bodies that can infringe on the rights of others. Even with regulations in place to prevent active infringement on the rights of others, there are avenues for those with more resources to exert
Political philosopher John Rawls believed that in order for society to function properly, there needs to be a social contract, which defines ‘justice as fairness’. Rawls believed that the social contract be created from an original position in which everyone decides on the rules for society behind a veil of ignorance. In this essay, it will be argued that the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. First, the essay will describe what the veil of ignorance is. Secondly, it will look at what Rawls means by the original position. Thirdly, it will look at why the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. Finally, the essay will present a criticism to the veil of ignorance and the original position and Rawls’ potential response to this.
& nbsp; Take Home Exam # 1: Essay-2 John Rawls never claimed to know the only way to start a society, but he did suggest a very sound and fair way to do so. He based his scenario on two principles of justice. His first principle of justice was that everyone should have the same rights as others.