Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Concept of justice
Rawls on the topics of fairness
Rawls on the topics of fairness
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Concept of justice
John Rawls' A Theory of Justice
John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" has long been revered as a marvel of modern political philosophy. It's most well-known for the two principles of justice outlined by Rawls: (1) that all persons have an equal right to liberty; and (2) that (a) all inequalities in society should be arranged to benefit the least advantages, and (b) that all positions and offices should be open and accessible as outlined by fair equality of opportunity. Rawls' conception of society, as a "co-operative venture for mutual gain", forms the basis for both principles, and he is at all times concerned with creating a stable concept of fair and just society. Rawls' second principle, dealing with distributive justice and equality of opportunity, outlines a theoretical procedure whereby the maximum social primary goods (i.e. wealth, health, respect, happiness) can be distributed o those with the minimum advantages ("maximin").
Rawls introduces this concept by establishing a social contract between people behind a "veil of ignorance". This veil would remove the identity and characteristics from an individual (age, sex, social status, race, religion, etc.) so that he or she would be forced to support a Basic Social Structure (where controls are set on the activities of individuals to maximize total primary goods and liberties) that is fair, just and equal. Rawls reasons that all inequalities that do not arise from such social circumstances are just, and therefore searches for a way to make social inequalities fair. In accordance with his policy of "justice as fairness", Rawls creates, and later defends, what is known as the "difference principle" (principle of justice #2). This principle stipulates that those who are adv...
... middle of paper ...
...nis player and a gardener, both of equal social advantage and natural endowment. One (the tennis player) chooses to waste resources and barely sustain himself, thus spiraling into the least advantaged spot. The gardener, on the other hand, continues to produce resources, and thus would have to, according to Rawls, subsidize the tennis player's decision not to work (as she would be in the great economic standing). Kymlicka calls this situation unreasonable, and states that Rawls needs to make his theory more "ambition-sensitive" to account for personal decisions. In cases like these, the worry is that individuals would lose ambition and their drive to succeed, as those who do had such characteristics would only end up supporting others. Overall, however, Kymlicka supports Rawl's principles of justice, sighting their utility in society, even if at time impracticality.
Why does it matter? Why do humans harp on the topics of justice and equality consistently? The answers to above mentioned questions aren’t easy to formulate, and they open up a door to greater questions about morality, humanity and so forth. Humans live in a cooperative society. The aim of this body of organization is to advance as a whole and individually simultaneously. John Rawls’ states this goal of human society in Distributive Justice published in 1979: “We may think of the human society as a more or less self-sufficient association regulated by a common conception of justice and aimed at advancing the good of its members.” Hence, our society is shaped by an idea of justice – one that is applicable to all members of this society, and this set conception of justice promotes the advancement of the society and the individuals living in
Imagine that rational actor X has been charged with the responsibility of developing the guiding principles for a totaly new type of social contract for today’s society. Is there a way for actor X to perform this task in a truly equitable manner? Consider that “with respect to any complex mater of deep human importance there is n o ‘innocent eye’ —no way of seeing the world that is entirely neutral and free of cultural shaping.” 1 As an entrenched member of a particular culture the complete removal of personal biases and prejudices from within the human psyche is not possible; nonetheless, it would of course be necessary to take steps to at least minimize their effects. In his 1971 book, A Theory of Justice , John Rawls suggests that exactly this type of reduction is possible by figuratively stepping behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ int o what he labels the ‘original position’ —this paper is an introduction to the contractarian thinking of John Rawls and its relation to the original position as expressed in his 1971 book, A Theory of Justice.
An essay “Man and Superman: In athletic competitions, what qualifies as a sporting chance?” by Malcolm Gladwell is attempted to answer an issue “Do genetic advantages make sports unfair?” The essay contains two arguments: human biological diversity makes sports unfair, and, consequently, as human attempts to equalise all the players as considered a moral obligation, the sports industry has no problem with athletes’ self-transformation while doping athletes is prohibited which, in his opinion, they should be justified just like those self-transformations. Gladwell also criticises the sports industry who is actually a culprit of this fairness, they try to level the playing by measuring that no one has an advantage over others but the consequence is a catalyst of science intervention.
Rawls theory of justice is idealistic because the original position cannot be forced upon individuals in the real world, instead individuals of the real world must put themselves into the original position. With so many self-interested human beings in our world, a society that completely honored the rights of their brethren is difficult to imagine, but events in our history when the disadvantages of the oppressed were finally fully realized by the privileged have proved that not only is altruism natural to us but a society who honors it will succeed. As King exemplified in his freedom marches, when people realize faults in society they convene and unify to expel them and usually find themselves better off as a whole. A reality where the democratically elected president of America is of color would be just another fantasy in 1956. However now, not only have we begun settling matters of civil rights, but areas of disparity in the lives of women, the disabled, the LGBTQI community and immigrants across the country. So as I reap from the benefits of that movement, I myself cannot help but strive to attain those opportunities that I could never have dreamed of 80 years ago and live a life that supports those around me so that as society can improve as a whole. Suppression in any part of society from things such as a gendered wage gap or segregation based on race hold society back. Rawls theory of justice sets society free from the weight of the disadvantaged and gives each person the greatest chance to evolve not just as individuals but as part of an evolving
I will begin this paper by making clear that this is a critique of Rawls and his difference principle and not an attempt at a neutral analysis. I have read the Theory of Justice and I have found it wanting in both scope and realism. The difference principle proposed by Rawls, his second principle is the focus of my critique. While this paper will not focus solely on the second principle, all analysis done within this essay are all targeted towards the scope of influence that Rawls treats the second principle with.
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,
The social contract theory of John Rawls challenges utilitarianism by pointing out the impracticality of the theory. Mainly, in a society of utilitarians, a citizens rights could be completely ignored if injustice to this one citizen would benefit the rest of society. Rawls believes that a social contract theory, similar those proposed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, would be a more logical solution to the question of fairness in any government. Social contract theory in general and including the views of Rawls, is such that in a situation where a society is established of people who are self interested, rational, and equal, the rules of justice are established by what is mutually acceptable and agreed upon by all the people therein. This scenario of negotiating the laws of that society that will be commonly agreed upon and beneficial to all is what Rawls terms "The Original Position and Justification".
During the era known as the time of the classical civilizations, there were numerous noticeable changes occurring in many civilizations and city-states around the world. In India, China, and Persia in particular, one could see the influence of religion and philosophy on the political and social structure of the time.
In order to form this fair society, Rawls creates the idea of the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance removes the prejudice from our decision making by allowing us to act as if we did not know our special talents, our race, our gender, or anything else that makes us unique individuals. Now because we do not know where we would fall in this fair society from behind the veil of ignorance, our natural instinct would be to raise the lowest class of people to a place that we would be comfortable in if we were to be there. This would also lower the stance of the highest class of people, but they would still be a higher class.
Justice plays a valuable part in the public’s life; no matter who you are or where you are from. In Michael Sandel’s Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? the reader encounters six specific approaches to lawfulness and ethical morality, which constitute of utilitarianism, libertarianism, Locke, Kant, Rawls, and Aristotle. Each of these definitive philosophies falls under one of three general concepts and categories. These consist of freedom, virtue, and welfare. Exclusively judging the title of the book, one may think that it attempts to solve or bring forth ethical and moral issues of our time. After reading the book however, the reader becomes aware that Sandel’s work is much
Thucydides’ version of Pericles’ “Funeral Oration” can be read as more of an ironic rendering of Pericles’ original speech since The History of the Peloponnesian War is not just considered to be a historical account but also a “highly imaginative piece of work” in which Thucydides made characters involved in the war say what he believed they actually meant instead of what they might have originally said (Thucydides Introduction pg. x). In the “Funeral Oration”, Pericles praises certain
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.
...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.
Rawls’ primary goal in designing the original position is to describe a situation that he believes would achieve the most extensive liberty and fairness possible to all the parties involved in his hypothetical social contract (Rawls, 1971). Rawls believes that in order to achieve this level of fairness, it must be assumed that the parties involved are situated behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ (Rawls, 1971). This veil of ignorance deprives all of the parties of all knowledge of arbitrary facts about themselves, about other citizens, from influencing the agreement among the representatives (Rawls, 1971). For example, “no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like.” (Rawls, 1971, 137) Rawls argues that if rational people found themselves in this position, they would al...
...egarding their classes within the state, which is essentially the idea of maximin. Therefore Rawls' approach to justice conveys the notion that our response to poverty should begin on a state level, for it is through the building of just state institutions that his two main principles can begin to take effect, which in turn, as Rawls' would argue, would lead to a more just and equal state which benefited persons of all social rankings.