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.
What I have found to be most interesting about both Deontology and Utilitarianism isn’t their approach to ethics, but rather their end goal. Deontology promotes “good will” as the ultimate good; it claims that each and every person has duties to respect others. On the other hand, Utilitarianism seeks to maximize general happiness. While these may sound rather similar at first glance (both ethical theories essentially center around treating people better), a deeper look reveals different motivations entirely. Deontology focuses on respecting the autonomy and humanity of others, basically preaching equal opportunity.
It requires an egalitarian approach to moral dilemmas in that all members of society are rationally consenting individuals with an equal right to basic liberties. Those in the Original Position must use all natural facts known to them in order to make their decision, and must also be concerned with those most likely to be exploited by such a decision—the safest bet being one that prevents the worst possible scenario. There is also no conception of the Good or of any moral hierarchy. In this way, the Original Position acts as a kind of fast-track test in assessing the validity of universalized maxims or laws by hypothetically applying them to an idealized, egalitarian model of the world. In applying the Original Position to the contentious issue of abortion this would mean that my gender neutral client would be operating in a world devoid of gender oppression.
Secondly, it will look at what Rawls means by the original position. Thirdly, it will look at why the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. Finally, the essay will present a criticism to the veil of ignorance and the original position and Rawls’ potential response to this. What is The Veil of Ignorance? 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).
Without the right to prop... ... middle of paper ... ...egalitarian theory of justice? The main idea behind his theory is that all social primary goods of liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, must be distributed equally. The egalitarian way of thinking is simply that any situation must be equal, equally talented, equally motivated and therefore have equal life prospects. It requires a society that believes and lives by equality and more respect. That is exactly what Rawls has been attempting to demonstrate by using the veil of ignorance, the thought-experiment.
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. Beyond Rawl’s principle of redistribution towards the least well off, there is no principle beyond addressing the situation of burdened individuals.
What if you could strip away outside inferences, opinions and see equality for what it is. The essential characteristics of equality are a veil of ignorance for justice and equal educational opportunity to succeed in the free market. Equality means everybody is to be treated the same regardless of their characteristics. This is the state of being right in status, rights and opportunities. Rawls came up with the concept "veil of ignorance" a hypothetical agreement that principles gives equal justice.
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.
In our lives, people generally do as they want or believe is right, to produce what they think will create satisfaction and happiness. I think that each situation we face in live doesn’t have to be constricted to one moral theory. In order to make good decisions, I believe an intelligent being would weigh all possibilities in a given situation. These moral theories should be combined when dealing with problems. The issue with these moral theories separately, is that it confines us to only one way of thinking.
Justice is the first virtue of Social institutions. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. (Rawls, 1971) Rawls depicted to us that society is a self-sufficient association of persons who in their relations to one another recognize certain rules of conducts as binding and who for the most part act in accordance with them.