More handpicked essays just for you.
Conclusion about justice and fairness john rawls
Conclusion about justice and fairness john rawls
How does John Rawls argue for his idea of a just society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
A Theory of Justice is the magnum opus of 20th century social contract theorist and political philosopher, John Rawls. A bit of background into this work is that social contract theory had fallen out of favor with political scientists and philosophers since the last 18th century, with the success of the American Revolution and the apparent triumph of John Locke and Democracy. However, with the advent of modern globalization, the emergence of America as a superpower, but the growing concern of socio-economic disparity necessitated a revisiting of the social contract, what it means, how societies and governments were best constructed.
Particularly, Rawls in this work attempts to solve the problem of distributive justice and reconcile the somewhat
…show more content…
Hobbes' description of the state of nature or anarchy was that it was “solitary, nasty, brutish, and short” and thus necessitated agreements among people to certain codes of conduct in order to co-exist reasonably. Rawls, however, creates the original position in order to flesh out his full thought experiment, which will be elaborated upon below.
Veil of Ignorance: The key difference between the classical state of nature and Rawls' original position is that in the state of nature the strong and advantaged can simply bully and forcefully survive beyond and coerce their weaker counterparts. The result may be some structure to society that could sustain civilization (i.e. monarchy, oligarchy, etc) but this result, while sufficient for the creation of the social contract, us unresponsive to the issue of what principles from a natural state would be truly just and create the best society for all
…show more content…
Not just because it's a brilliant work but because after reading the subsequent responses in the social contract wars of the 70's – namely Nozick's libertarian magnum opus Anarchy, State, Utopia, Walzer's communitarian Spheres of Justice, Sandel's agency-based criticism in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, and Wolff's Marxist Understanding Rawls – I've been convinced that society writ large would be significantly better off if it followed Rawlsian principles.
Having said that, I've come to believe that the reason the veil of ignorance becomes increasingly difficult to even moderately achieve – that is to say the reason it's becoming near impossible to get even disadvantaged citizens to vote for or believe in principles that would most benefit them – is because the advantaged have so thoroughly monopolized the rhetoric of dreaming and individualism that it muddies the ability of folks to see our rampant abuse of the tragedy of the commons in favor of the supremely
“The greatest challenge to Rawls’s theory from racial/ethnic minorities could well be his insistence on basing overlapping consensus on the “basic institutions” of U.S. society: appreciations and understandings developed by the dominant group in society, but without taking into consideration oppressed peoples. Liberty, equality, and the common good are indeed important values. However, the issues is, What do they mean in the twenty-first century in a heterogeneous society integrated by others besides Euro-American males?”
“Social contract theory says that people live together in society in accordance with an agreement that establishes moral and political rules of behavior. Some people believe that if we live according to a social contract, we can live morally by our own choice and not because a divine being requires it.” - Crash Course. I think they provide a valuable framework for harmony in society. In this sitution is not good thing which third/ fourths of the people don’t understand english that it could be dangerous for the people who don’t speak chinse.
Here one might think Rawls has missed the point. For what is problematic about his liberalism, it might be argued, is that it will prove non-neutral in its effects on doctrines and ways of life permissible on its own account of political justice. But Rawls has not missed the point. Rawls’s liberalism does not rest on a commitment to the value of, nor does it require, a social world maximally diverse with respect to comprehensive doctrines or ways of life willing more or less to accept liberal principles of political justice. Of course, Rawls’s liberalism would be in serious trouble were it to lead to a social world only weakly diverse. But so long as Rawls’s liberalism permits a healthy degree of diversity, to claim that its non-neutral effect on some comprehensive doctrine or way of life is unfair is to presuppose rather than establish the correctness of some competing conception of justice.
Robert Nozick in the excerpt from his book Anarchy, State and Utopia presents his ideas on why a government in power should not spread the wealth of the state among all of the residents. Nozick writes mainly in response to John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice in which Rawls focuses on the idea of the state working towards improving financially the lives of those that are in the worst conditions. To explain his point of view Nozick expounds on various concepts that provide a better understanding of the procedure that lead to him arriving at the conclusion that he did. This includes the entitlement theory of Nozick. In this paper I will explain how Nozick reaches the conclusion that redistributive justice should not take place along with a detailed look at the various major concepts of his theory. In addition, I will also provide my view on what John Rawls’s argument against Nozick’s theory might be. Finally, I will explain why I agree with John Rawl’s theory and present detailed reasoning.
INTRODUCTION John Rawls most famous work, A Theory of Justice, deals with a complex system of rules and principles. It introduces principles of justice to the world, principles which Rawls argues, are meant to create and strengthen equality while removing the inequality which exists within society. These principles are both meant as standalone laws and regulations, but they can be joined as well. The main function of the first principle is to ensure the liberty of every individual, while the second principle is meant to be the force for the removal of inequality through what Rawls calls distributive justice. I will begin this paper by making clear that this is a critique of Rawls and his principle of difference and not an attempt at a neutral analysis.
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".
“The idea is that society rests on an agreement that we make with one another.” This, is perhaps, the strongest of three statements made during a dialog between Socrates and Crito. Socrates makes it clear that he is a patriot to the city which he has known his entire life. It can be argued that his friend Crito does not share in his patriotism. His concern is more about his own appearances, money, and property, as opposed to doing what is right in the eyes of the law. This was evident in his escape plan presented to Socrates.
Hobbes and Rousseau created a revolutionary idea of the state of nature. They did not believe government should be organized through the church, therefore abandoning the idea of the divine right theory, where power of the king came directly from God. Starting from a clean slate, with no organized church, Hobbes and Rousseau needed a construct on what to build society on. The foundation of society began with the original state of nature. Hobbes’ perception of the original state of nature is what would exist if there were no common power to execute and enforce the laws to restrain individuals. In this case, the laws of the jungle would prevail: only the fittest survive. Man’s desires are insatiable. Since resources are scarce, humankind is naturally competitive, inevitably creating jealousy and hatred, which eventually leads to war.
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.
This essay will critically discuss the strengths and weaknesses in how Nozick justifies his approach to distributive justice. Rawls presents a contrasting social liberalist theory in ‘A Theory of Justice’. His theory consists of a hypothetical scenario
John Rawls and Robert Nozick both provide compelling and thought provoking theories regarding the values of liberty and equality. Rawls focuses on both liberty and equality while Nozick theorizes exclusively on liberty. The ideas of Rawls and Nozick have multiple strengths as well as weaknesses which allow for debate and comparison between the two theories.
...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.
Political philosopher John Rawls believed that in order for society to function properly, there needs to be a social contract, which defines ‘justice as fairness’. Rawls believed that the social contract be created from an original position in which everyone decides on the rules for society behind a veil of ignorance. In this essay, it will be argued that the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. First, the essay will describe what the veil of ignorance is. 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.
& nbsp; Take Home Exam # 1: Essay-2 John Rawls never claimed to know the only way to start a society, but he did suggest a very sound and fair way to do so. He based his scenario on two principles of justice. His first principle of justice was that everyone should have the same rights as others.