The Making of a Just Society

1913 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Why the American Dream is important

In every society there are rules and regulations that are presented because they are necessary to the way that the society runs. This is accepted as the norm in many places due to the effectiveness and control that it offers to figures of authority. The theory that John Rawls is presenting as his “original position” is that the rules that are written into a societal contract should be unbiased among all the people. This seems like a reasonable thought, but when it comes to maintaining total impartiality, most people find that it is hard to set all personal matters and feelings aside. To combat this bias, Rawls implements the “veil of ignorance” into his position and thinks that it would hypothetically make for a suitable and just world. The veil that he describes creates an unbiased opinion due to the fact that the rules would be made by people who did not know their future opinions or lifestyle. They would have no knowledge of who they were to become politically, economically, or in any other manner, but would have a common knowledge to base decisions on. There are two main components to upholding the theory of keeping rules just; they are having equality in rights, and if there is to be an inequality then it has to benefit people, especially the least well off. Living in a society such as the United States there seems to be a ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality. This being said, the society in which America has created is not one of justice, but one of personal profit.
The overarching theme that John Rawls presents as the “original position” is a contract that would be signed willingly by all people, something that an entire population could agree upon. The focus is to make a society as just as possible through the rules and r...

... middle of paper ...

...ortunate to have the impartiality that is ideal to create such a society. There is corruption in the legal system and socioeconomic differences that set people apart and create tension when trying to become a society built on cooperation. Having a just system does not require everyone to be the same. It requires everyone to contribute to the goals of society in one way or another; whether it be through the identity of interest or the conflict of interest. Being a just society is something that America will never achieve; greed and success are at the forefront of the American dream. These priorities take the place of equality and justice. Being a just civilization is too good to be true for the people that focus on what they want before what others need

Works Cited

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Revised ed. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Havard Press, 1999. Print.

Show More
Related

  • Summary Of The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense

    140 Words  | 1 Pages

    The author believes the maldistribution of any punishment is not relevant to its justice – The guilty are punished, not one’s race, economic, or social status.

    Read More

  • John Rawls On Justice Analysis

    1184 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the aforementioned passage from her document “John Rawls on Justice” Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz’s sheds light on the major flaw in John’s Rawls’s “social contract theory” for establishing “Justice” in our society. She asserts

    Read More

  • Autobiography of the Imprisoned Peon

    869 Words  | 2 Pages

    People who have power are in control of the world around them. This includes the government, which in turn means the justice system. What happens when society doesn’t look like the dream of those in control? They manipulate the rules in attempt to make dreams come true. In the nineteenth century after the Civil War, the government and people in society had a particular vision in mind. Some wanted whites to still have control over African Americans, others wanted streets without the homeless and jobless. Even though these are different approaches, the primary goal was to “fix” the appearance of society, to keep the streets looking presentable, and to create contributing members of society from the less fortunate.

    Read More

  • Accommodating Pluralism: Liberal Neutrality and Compulsory Education

    3389 Words  | 7 Pages

    Here one might think Rawls has missed the point. For what is problematic about his liberalism, it might be argued, is that it will prove non-neutral in its effects on doctrines and ways of life permissible on its own account of political justice. But Rawls has not missed the point. Rawls’s liberalism does not rest on a commitment to the value of, nor does it require, a social world maximally diverse with respect to comprehensive doctrines or ways of life willing more or less to accept liberal principles of political justice. Of course, Rawls’s liberalism would be in serious trouble were it to lead to a social world only weakly diverse. But so long as Rawls’s liberalism permits a healthy degree of diversity, to claim that its non-neutral effect on some comprehensive doctrine or way of life is unfair is to presuppose rather than establish the correctness of some competing conception of justice.

    Read More

  • Racial Profiling by Police in Canada

    2887 Words  | 6 Pages

    Hulbert, M. A. (2011). Pursuing justice: An introduction to justice studies. Black Point, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

    Read More

  • Criminal Justice

    751 Words  | 2 Pages

    The governance of our present day public and social order co-exist within the present day individual. Attempts to recognize the essentiality of equality in hopes of achieving an imaginable notion of structure and order, has led evidence based practitioners such as Herbert Packer to approach crime and the criminal justice system through due process and crime control. A system where packer believed in which ones rights are not to be infringed defrauded or abused was to be considered to be the ideal for procedural fairness. “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” Thomas Jefferson pg 9 cjt To convict an individual because proper consideration was not taken will stir up social unrest rather then it’s initial intent, when he or she who has committed the crime is not punished for their doings can cause for a repetition and even collaboration with other’s for a similar or greater crime.

    Read More

  • Rawls Principles Of Justice Essay

    1396 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rawls states that you cannot reimburse for the sufferings of the distressed by enhancing the joys of the successful. Fairness according to him occurs when the society makes sure that every individual is treated equally before the law and given a c...

    Read More

  • John Rawls's Theory Of Social Justice

    1529 Words  | 4 Pages

    Imagine that all of the sudden memories of your life and everyone you’ve ever known suddenly disappeared. In this scenario, all knowledge you had of your talents, social status, financial standing, physical ability, intelligence and the other characteristics that you viewed could to definitively set yourself apart from others. In other words, everything that made you who you are through years of socialization all of the sudden vanished. To the John Rawls this scenario is called the original position, one where your consciousness has been placed under a “veil of ignorance”. As a thought experiment, Rawls argues that if individuals of a society discuss and define their system of social justice from the original position, the result of the discussion

    Read More

  • Rawls Theory Of Justice

    3346 Words  | 7 Pages

    INTRODUCTION John Rawls most famous work, A Theory of Justice, deals with a complex system of rules and principles. It introduces principles of justice to the world, principles which Rawls argues, are meant to create and strengthen equality while removing the inequality which exists within society. These principles are both meant as standalone laws and regulations, but they can be joined as well. The main function of the first principle is to ensure the liberty of every individual, while the second principle is meant to be the force for the removal of inequality through what Rawls calls distributive justice. I will begin this paper by making clear that this is a critique of Rawls and his principle of difference and not an attempt at a neutral analysis.

    Read More

  • A Defense Of Retributivism Essay

    1823 Words  | 4 Pages

    This paper considers the desert arguments raised to support retributivism, or retribution. Retributivism is "the application of the Principle of Desert to the special case of criminal punishment." Russ Shafer-Landau and James Rachels offer very different perspectives on moral desert which ground their differing views on the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In "The Failure of Retributivism," Shafer-Landau contends that retributivism fails to function as a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the legal use of punishment. In contrast, in his article "Punishment and Desert," Rachels uses the four principles of guilt, equal treatment, proportionality and excuses to illustrate the superiority of retribution as the basis for the justice system over two alternatives: deterrence and rehabilitation. Their philosophical treatment of the term leads to divergence on the justification of legal punishment. Ultimately, Rachels offers a more compelling view of desert than Shafer-Landau and, subsequently, better justifies his endorsement of a retributive justice system.

    Read More

  • Riggs V Palmer Case Study

    1528 Words  | 4 Pages

    This theory looks at how the sovereign and its officials created the law based on social norms and the institutions (Hart, 1958). However, hard cases such as this makes for bad law, which test the validity of the law at hand based on what the objective of the law was in the first place. The law should not be so easily dismissed just because it does not achieve justice in the most morally sound manner (Hart, 1958). Bentham and Austin understood that there are two errors in the way law is understood, what the law is and what the law should be (Hart, 1958). He knew that if law was to become what humans perceived the law ought to be, the law itself would be lost, but he also recognized that if the opposite was to occur where the law replaced morality, than any man would escape liability and there would be no retribution (Hart, 1958). This theory looks at the point of view of the dissenting judge, Justice Gray, which is that the law is what it is, even if it may conflict with morals. Austin stated that “The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry (Hart, 1958).” This case presents the same conflict that Bentham and Austin addressed, that the law based on the statute of the

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Abolishing The Death Penalty

    1653 Words  | 4 Pages

    “ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).

    Read More

  • The History Of Criminal Justice

    1016 Words  | 3 Pages

    The definition of justice and the means by which it must be distributed differ depending on an individual’s background, culture, and own personal morals. As a country of many individualistic citizens, the United States has always tried its best to protect, but not coddle, its people in this area. Therefore, the criminal justice history of the United States is quite extensive and diverse; with each introduction of a new era, more modern technologies and ideals are incorporated into government, all with American citizens’ best interests in mind.

    Read More

  • Distributive Justice By Robert Nozick And John Rawls

    1255 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...e achieved when the Liberty and Difference Principle are enacted with the veil of ignorance. On the contrary, Nozick argues that Rawls’s theory is exactly the sort of patterned principle that infringes upon individual liberty. As an alternative, Nozick provides his unpatterned principle as the ideal distribution of goods in a society. To me, Rawls’s argues his theory in a manner where his principles of justice are not only difficult to achieve, but ultimately are exceedingly deficient in providing general utility. The veil of ignorance has proved to be almost impossible as well as unethical. The Difference Principle in itself is unable to justly distribute property since it clearly violates an individual’s liberty. Since Rawls’s method of distributive justice is rendered unreasonable and inefficient, it leaves us with a clear answer derived from two disjunctions.

    Read More

  • The Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance

    1361 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about The Making of a Just Society

Open Document