Global Ethics, Utilitarianism And Rawls Theory Of Social Justice

In Global Ethics, there are various theories that can apply to it. There are moral theories, political theories and rights theories. Under each of these types of theories are specified topics and ideas. The main moral theories are Utilitarianism, Deontology and Virtue Ethics. Under political theory, there is cosmopolitanism and Rawls’ theory of social justice. Under rights theory, there is human rights. All of these specified topics give a different approach to ethics and how we might perceive what ethics are. The moral theories of Utilitarianism, Deontology and Virtue Ethics all try to explain to us why a certain action is right or wrong. The first of the moral theories is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the moral theory that encourages

Specifically, the political theories of cosmopolitanism and Rawls’ theory of social justice are two of the political theories that can apply to global ethics. Cosmopolitanism is the political theory that all individuals must be of equal ethical concern and it must apply globally. The main focus of it is political. There are many versions of cosmopolitanism. Some are weak and some are strong. A strong version of it would be that all moral obligations go beyond national borders and they apply to everyone rather than a select amount. A weak version of cosmopolitanism is the same thing as the strong version but instead some is emphasized. Cosmopolitanism has three defining features. These features are: 1) the moral sphere is global for at least some obligations: some or all duties go beyond nation borders; 2) emphasis on the individual as having moral worth rather than entities; and 3) all individuals have equal moral worth. The values that cosmopolitanism puts forth appeal to me very much. I like how that under a strong version of it, obligations apply worldly rather than locally. I especially like how it values equality. We are all equal people no matter race, color or any other aspect and it should definitely be that way. No one was created as better than the other person or group of people. There is nothing about Cosmopolitanism that I can disagree with. I think it, generally, could be applied to many

Under Rawls’ theory, he has two principles. The first principle secures the equality of citizens regarding basic freedoms ranging from political to freedom of owning property. The second principle is known as the difference principle. In this principle, it secures reasonable distribution of wealth and positions of power. His first principle is especially prevalent in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights in the U.S Constitution. The Bill of Rights includes the basic freedoms that we as citizens have. Some of these basic freedoms are freedom of speech, religion, press and so on. As citizens under a government, this is something that needs to hold true. We should never be denied our rights to express our opinions and preferences. It something that I feel as if we are born with having. It is sad to hear that in some countries, like North Korea, it doesn’t exactly play out that way. The second principle of Rawls’ is another important idea that I approve of. The wealth and power in some places, especially in the United States, is unbalanced. It shouldn’t be that the 1% control most of the nation’s wealth and power. With that, it means the other 99% have the remaining wealth and power, which is basically not much at all. Knowing this, there should be something in place that distributes wealth a little more fairly but doesn’t take away from those who earned it rightfully. So in all, Rawls’