There is an emphasis on lives containing more pleasure than pain under the rule that one person cannot put their own happiness above others. I think a type of morality such as this would be more successful than other forms of morality because it wants every human life to be a life filled with more pleasure than pain. I see this as an appropriate foundation because it promotes good over bad, which is ultimately the function of morality as a whole. As written by Raymond Plant, “Since the principle of the individual is to try to satisfy his desires…the principle of society should be to try to advance the satisfactions of those who belong to the society…”
Liberty is thought to be the first requirement of society. Even though it may result in greater happiness and increased benefits for others, an institution or law that violates individual liberty has to be rejected as being unjust. Professor Nozick would say that the cooperation comes as a result of exchange of goods and services and agrees that society is an association of individ¬uals, and that cooperation between those individuals is necessary for economic gain. The holdings of each person, in income, wealth, and the other bases of self respect, are derived from other people in exchange for some good or service, or are received from other people in the form of a gift. An existing pattern of holdings may have come about through application of any of the five principles of distribution (to each equally, or to each according to need, effort, contribution, or competence), but those patterns will be changed by transfers, and those transfers, by ex¬change or gift, can be considered to be "just" as long as they are voluntary.
Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed.
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.
On the issues of justice and law, he says people have the right to self-defense, but not to war. Additionally, that police, government, and the armed forces, are up to be constructed by the people if they deem it necessary (42-43). I believe other institutions, like education, would also benefit from having more participants in its creation in order to reflect the diverse society. Rawls also mentions another type of society- a hierarchical society- where basic human rights are granted credibility by those in power and it accesses its legitimate aims through diplomacy, trade and peace (50-51/59). It is not liberal, equal, and free, but rather breeds responsible members of society that play a part in social life (53).
Furthermore, I believe that fair equality of opportunity is required for justice because it is bringing light to the fact that justice requires equal rights for all in all circumstances and without fair equality of opportunity, justice would never be fully satisfied because some would be advantaged over others. Rawls’ equality of opportunity is not considered fully sufficient because he says “society should take into account economic efficiency and the requirements of organizations and technology,” meaning that if there are inequalities with any aspects of life that work to better everyone despite the concept of equality, than that is what should be permitted. The reason I believe that Rawls’ is correct on his idea of equality of opportunity idea is because I believe that we are required to consider everything when making decisions as a society and it is a problem to only look at the merits or experience of certain individuals when superior advantages are at hand. In addition, In Rawls second principle of justice he says that fair equality of opportunity requires that citizens with the same talents and willingness to use those talents should have the same educational and economic opportunities regardless of their
The difference principle which is the second principle means that the state may give other individuals more power and influence than other individuals provided certain conditions are met such as promoting people in official positions without any form of partiality. This implies that raising the standard of living of the advantaged in the society will automatically result in raising the standard of living of the poor in the society (Garrett, 2002). Robert Nozick is one well known thinker who has criticised Rawls’ difference principle, he contends that Rawls overlooks the difference in individuals when he said natural talents of privileged or advantaged individuals should
Rawls ideas on economic and social justice provide a more just system than the ideas of Nozick because of these concerns for the least advantaged. Although, people should have a right to accumulate their own wealth and hold onto it, we can see that focusing on the process view can ultimately lead to an end result that is unjust for the society as a whole. Nozick maximizes individual liberties, but he excludes the restrictive liberties that Rawls’s second principle describes. Under Nozick’s theory, those who are least advantaged do not get a fair shot in society. Furthermore, Rawls proves that sacrificing certain individual liberties is morally justified if it creates an end-result that is just.
Rawlsian Affirmative Action: Compensatory Justice as Seen from the Original Position * ABSTRACT: In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls presents a method of determining how a just society would allocate its "primary goods"-that is, those things any rational person would desire, such as opportunities, liberties, rights, wealth, and the bases of self-respect. (1) Rawls' method of adopting the "original position" is supposed to yield a "fair" way of distributing such goods. A just society would also have the need (unmet in the above work) to determine how the victims of injustice ought to be compensated, since history suggests that social contracts are likely to be violated. This paper is an attempt to determine the remedial measures that would be selected using Rawls' method. I contend that only two of the three most widely used "affirmative action" policies would be selected from the original position.
Essay Choice (1) When choosing their social structures, one must decide whether for the rights of the people, social conditions or for sovereignty. Both Locke and Marx had similar views when it came down to the consent of the people. People want to be free and less oppressed by their superiors and thus anyone in the way would be a problem for their society. In Locke’s view it was the monarchs and aristocrats of the world as for Marx it was the bourgeoisie. The difference between Locke and Marx would be that that have a different conclusion about the nature of humans and the desires for the consenting public.