Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Justice and equality
Equal Rights and Fairness
Justice and equality in our society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Justice and equality
Given the opportunity to determine the basic structure of society, I would try to come up with a structure that would benefit everyone not just those at the top of the ladder. Today, mainly because of how our society is shaped, those at the bottom are almost literally stuck at the bottom against a double edged sword. They try to climb out of the pit of poverty only to be held back by the pit of poverty. We have people who are famous for being famous, while people like teachers and doctors, who actually benefit society, have a much smaller salary and standing in society. A society in which our rights could be exercised up until the point when two people’s rights would clash would be the most beneficial. Examining society Rawls principles of justice are the best structure for society.
To use Rawls principles of justice one must first enter the original position. The original position according to Rawls is “the appropriate initial status quo which insures that the fundamental agreements reached in it are fair.” (Rawls: Justice as Fairness, From a Theory of Justice. pg. 489) What Rawls is trying to do is create a position in which a person removes themselves from all forms of bias. Potential forms of bias are race, color, gender, social status, and things such as our own theory of the good; are what need to be removed from the original position and placed outside the “Veil of Ignorance”. One would be removing bias from themselves, or stripping away the layers that could form a judgment based on something that would favor one group from another. Potential sources of bias are also known as what are not allowed behind “veil of Ignorance”. However, to make a valid and sound conclusion on something one must be knowledgeable enough to ma...
... middle of paper ...
...the bourgeoisie or rich, control the proletariat or poor. Nozick could be seen as a Marxist due to the very nature that according to his principles of justice allow for an employer to very largely profit off the hard work and dedication of an employee, who is making a much smaller profit, as long as the profit is justly acquired and held. Nozick’s theory would also remove the taxation of the rich to an equal taxation of both the poor and rich.
Works Cited
Nozick, Robert. "The Entitlement Thoery of Justice, from Anarch, State, and Utopia."
Philosophical Problems. By Laurence Bonjour and Ann Baker. Ed. Eric Stano. 2nd ed. New York:
Pearson, 2008. 476-482. Print.
Rawls, John. “Justice As Fairness, From A Theory Of Justice.”
Philosophical Problems. By Laurence Bonjour and Ann baker. Ed. Eric Stano. 2nd ed. New York:
Pearson, 2008. 4854-494. Print
Feinberg, Joel and Russ Shafer-Landau, eds. Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group, 2002.
Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. "7,8,9,10." In The elements of moral philosophy. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010. 97-145.
According to Nozick, “Taxation of earnings from labor is on par with forced labor.” (Anarchy, State, Utopia, 169). Philosophers Robert Nozick and John Rawls take opposing stances on this matter. They illustrate their opinions and reasonings in their theories in order to advocate for their respective arguments. This paper will look to clarify and evaluate Nozick’s argument as well as Rawls’ response to Nozick’s claim that taxation is on par with forced labor. The goal of this paper is, therefore, to discuss both Rawls and Nozick’s theories in order to argue against Nozick’s reasoning and argument.
What I argue, however, is that the difference principle proposes to remove inequality from society but fails in this endeavor due to retaining enough inequality to benefit the disadvantaged, leaving the principle defective in its nature. This will be the question analyzed in this essay where I will first explain the two principles proposed by Rawls as well as the lexical order or priority, which is a central feature within A Theory of Justice. I will then begin an analysis of these ideas and explain the reason for my critique of the principles. Each section will deal with an in-depth analysis of what Rawls proposes to do and then examine the scope behind such an action, ending with why it falls short of the intended result.
American Philosophical Quarterly 21, no. 3 (1984): 227-36.
Stumpf, S.E and Fieser, J. Philosophy: History and Readings, New York: Mc Graw Hill, 2008.
Rawls creates a hypothetical society, via a thought experiment known as the “Veil of Ignorance,” in which all that you knew of yourself is eliminated from your mind to allow you to come to a rational decision on how you would like your society to be organized. Rawls principle is that under a social contract what is right must be the same for everyone. The essence of Rawls' “veil of ignorance” is that it is designed to be a representation of persons purely in their capacity as free and equal moral persons. Out of this experiment Rawls provides us with two basic p...
Wittgenstein, Ludwig; G. E. M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte (eds. and trans.). Philosophical Investigations. 4th edition, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.
Sandel’s thinks that the question of distributive justice is where the principles of justice are derived from. He states that Rawls believed that these principles are best derived from a hypothetical contract and that said contract should be carried out behind the veil of ignorance. Rawls then argued that those who are self-interested behind this veil would choose these two principles of justice to structure society: the principle of fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle. The first principle explains that all jobs and positions should be open to every and any individual regardless of their wealth, level of education, etc while the second regulates inequalities, only permitting those that benefit the worst off. Rawls argued
John Rawls’ Theory of Justice attempts to establish a fair and reasonable social account of social justice. To do this, he discusses two fundamental principles of justice, which if implemented into society, would guarantee a just and fair way of life. Rawls is mostly concerned with the social good (what is good and just), and his aim with the Theory of Justice is to provide a way that society could be one that is fair and just, while taking into consideration, a person’s primary goods (rights and liberties, opportunities, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect). The usage of these principles will lead to an acceptable basis of self-respect. That saying, if the two principles are fair and just, then the final primary good,
John Rawl believed that all goods and services should be distributed equally unless unequally doing so would be beneficial to all. The Veil of Ignorance is the ignorance of one’s characteristics, such as gender, intelligence or talents. The first principle of a system designed under the veil of ignorance is that “each person is permitted the maximum amount of basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others”. The second is that inequalities can only be allowed if it benefits everyone.
Ed. Michael Goldman. Teaching Philosophy 36.2 (2013): 181-82. Print. The.
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.
1) Oxford Readings in Philosophy. The Concept of God. New York: Oxford University press 1987
Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 4th ed. Toronto: McGraw Hill Companies, 2002.