It is not fair for moral Arbitrariness to have superiority over the less fortunate in justice and the free market. There should be opportunities given to start at the same starting point regardless of status quo. Everyone has an opinion on equality which fairly is their own. An opinion is just an opinion base on what the individual believe is right by how they feel. What if you could strip away outside inferences, opinions and see equality for what it is.
This theory stresses the principle of equal rights, and that an act is ‘just’ if equality is realized by everyone affected by the act. Before delving into John Rawls’ views on a ‘just’ society it is essential to understand his perception of the role of justice in society, as described in his book A Theory of Justice. Justice in society enforces individual’s rights and to “[deny] that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others”. When the notion of justice becomes shared by all citizens, and equality is achieved, civility between members of society will restrict the use of some individuals as means to personal ends. Overall, Rawls argues that the most distinctive role of justice in society is to equally distribute rights and duties to individuals.
Rawls defines justice as fairness as the choices made in the original position, saying, “They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality defining the fundamental terms of their association...This way of regarding the principles of justice we shall call justice as fairness.”(10) By assuming people in the original position could only make rational, unbiased judgements, Rawls claims principles reached in this position would be the most just. Considering the veil of ignorance creates a lack of knowledge about individual positions and personal conceptions of the good, choices in the original position are limited in ability to unfairly distribute economic and political advantages. Although named justice as fairness, Rawls theory does not attempt to redistribute primary goods among all member of society, rather it only attempts to show how the principles chosen in the original principle would benefit all members of society. With the introduction of the original position, Rawls intends to show how justice as fairness is a more attractive choice than utilitarianism. In defin... ... middle of paper ... ... equality would be chosen under the original position.
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.
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. One strength is the inherent compulsion to look after the interests of the entire society through the Veil of Ignorance. One is unable to look after the interests of a single particular ethnic, political or social grouping because of uncertainty regarding which groups they will belong to within society, so they grant all individuals “freedom of thought, [religion], personal and political liberties” . This establishes a precedent of equality for all and ensures a fair standard of living.
Furthermore, I believe that fair equality of opportunity is required for justice because it is bringing light to the fact that justice requires equal rights for all in all circumstances and without fair equality of opportunity, justice would never be fully satisfied because some would be advantaged over others. Rawls’ equality of opportunity is not considered fully sufficient because he says “society should take into account economic efficiency and the requirements of organizations and technology,” meaning that if there are inequalities with any aspects of life that work to better everyone despite the concept of equality, than that is what should be permitted. The reason I believe that Rawls’ is correct on his idea of equality of opportunity idea is because I believe that we are required to consider everything when making decisions as a society and it is a problem to only look at the merits or experience of certain individuals when superior advantages are at hand. In addition, In Rawls second principle of justice he says that fair equality of opportunity requires that citizens with the same talents and willingness to use those talents should have the same educational and economic opportunities regardless of their
But the moral basis for the requirements of justice that should govern those states is universal in scope: it is a concern for the fairness of the terms on which we share the world with anyone (Nagel, 2005, 119-120). Nagel’s example of historical injustice of being born in poor rather than rich is considered as arbitrary determinant of one’s fate. Because, what determines a human being is their achievement to establish a well-developed society, not based on income and status.
The general concept of Rawls “original position” is that all social “Primary Good” should be distributed equally to individuals in a society, unless an unequal distribution favors those less fortunate. Rawls call “the situation of ignorance about your own place in society the “original position (242).” Rawls’ theory is in direct response to John Lock’s principles on social contract which states that people in a free society need to set rules on how to live with one another in peace. Rawls’ principles were designed to guards against injustices, which was inflicted upon society, with the help of John Stuart Mills Utilitarianism principle that individuals should act so as to maximize the greatest good for the greatest number. Mills principle justified Nazi Germany's mistreatment of the Jews and the United States' mistreatment of African- Americans. Rawls’ argues that a person’s good is that which is needed for the successful execution of a rational long-term goal of life given reasonably favorable circumstances.
That is exactly what Rawls has been attempting to demonstrate by using the veil of ignorance, the thought-experiment. All of these factors were demonstrating a main principle that Rawls wants people to seek the right to utilize their own talents without being worried about what others are going to think or feel about them; either they are good or bad. Rawls is suggesting that this is done by sharing one another’s fate, by doing this it will create a more equal society.
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,