For one to exhibit justice, one must portray the quality of being fair and reasonable in all situations. While egalitarians evaluate justice based on equality, utilitarians are only interested in justice as a means to an end. Smart advocates the principle of utility, which defines the morally action as whatever produces the greatest net happiness for everyone affected by that act. To identify an act as ‘just,’ Rawls employs the theory of justice as fairness. This theory stresses the principle of equal rights, and that an act is ‘just’ if equality is realized by everyone affected by the act.
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.
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.
One of Rawls' critics argues that Rawls' approach assumes that the resources to be (re-) distributed to implement his principles of justice are treated as if they are not already owned by the current holders and, consequently, disregards the effect redistribution would have on those persons' lives. Hitherto, this claim has no basis to stand or even damage Rawls’ overall arguments. The two aforementioned principles essent... ... middle of paper ... ...e main goal for a society should be to develop a fair system over time in which social cooperation is maximized overall from one generation to the next. Stemming from that goal, the most important claim in the work posits that the equal distribution of resources leads to the most desirable state and that inequality can only be justified by benefits for the least advantaged. In making that claim, Rawls retroactively pointed out to the fact that people have inherent rights to the things that they produce as this is only natural (from the first principle).
Justice has long been heralded as key to the creation and maintenance of a society, yet why this is has been harder to pinpoint. Pascal argued in Pensees that "force without justice is tyranny." Underlying this contention is the idea that equality amongst all people is inherently good and should be sought after. This is because he assumes that tyranny is a bad thing and that in order for force to be used to good ends it needs to be justified. How can any force be justified?
It is insufficient to state some rights if there are not the conditions to fulfill them. Rousseau and Rawls, two political philosophers, strongly believe in the idea of community and provide a state system which considers the interests of ... ... middle of paper ... ...eful society, at least idealistically. In fact, the main controversy is that those political systems seem simply unachievable in real life. Yet, this is not enough to prevent governments from striving to improve. Works Cited • Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1754), in The Social Contract and Discourses, trans.
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.
The adoption of impartiality and promotion of total happiness coincides with Mill’s viewpoints, yet the two philosophers neglect intrinsic value and over-demandingness. Yet, objectivity in moral construct stands unattainable. Thus, personal values, justice, and virtues merit the overarching dilemma of what we ought to or not ought to do. Word Count: 1238
Utilitarianism defends the argument that the ends justify the means and that actions are correct if the benefit the majority of the population. In order to achieve this principle of utility, it is necessary for members to carry out unjust actions in order to satisfy their own gratification. Overall, utilitarianism is not an applicable in any sort of society. Its preface to stimulate equality and achieve hedonism will only be found in an obscure utopia.
In fact, according to Dr. Evans, More's contemporaries had no doubt that More was attempting to depict a perfect society, one firmly based upon the precepts of reason. However, More injects several major flaws in the Utopian system, which subverts the possibility of that society being truly ideal. In his attempt to expose the inherent limitations of reason, More presents us with the Utopian society, which both benefits and loses from reason in their handling of material wealth, religious toleration, and respect for human life. More uses the Utopians' total rejection of material wealth to present the possibility of reason overcoming petty greed. The Utopians' realization that material wealth has little value is, at least on face, one of the higher pinnacles of their civilization.