The Veil Of Ignorance In Aristotle's Views

547 Words2 Pages

1) Philosopher John Rawls believed that ones own wealth or status should be unknown for the legal system to achieve full fairness and to be unbiased. For example in the case of one being appointed free legal representation, the judge would be unaware that it was free council. In this situation there is no ‘veil of ignorance’ because it operates on the complete knowledge that the offender could not pay the fine. I feel that the veil of ignorance would be unjust in this situation, as it is a very different situation to have someone struggling financially be unable to pay the fine over someone who potentially could, but chooses not to.
2) Aristotle believed poverty is the parent of revolution and crime, so I believe that he would have replied with; it is in the laws best interest to help people escape poverty instead of further trapping them within it (by making one pay an unrealistic fine or disabling them from working by sentencing them to either jail time or house arrest.) He also believed that if
These alternatives would better the society that the offenders are part of, and could better help prevent further occurrences of the

Open Document