The principles of justice are in place to ensure that the “assignment of rights and duties” through the basic structure of society justly distribute both the “benefits and burdens” of social and economic advantages (Rawls, 47). Drawing from the difference principle, inequalities in wealth and income can be justified if all parties benefit as a result. In comparison to the alternative interpretations of natural liberty and liberal equality, a system of democratic equality holds to “pure procedural justice…[although] this still leaves too much to social and natural contingency” (Rawls, 69). Given this notion, however, the difference principle is fully “compatible with the principle of efficiency” (Rawls, 69). 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).
Rawls came up with the concept "veil of ignorance" a hypothetical agreement that principles gives equal justice. "The veil of ignorance ensures the equality of power and knowledge that the original position requires. By ensuring that no one knows his or her place in society, his strengths or weaknesses, his values or ends, the veil of ignorance ensures that no one can take advantage, even unwittingly, of a favorable bargaining position". (Sandel Pg.150) The veil of ignorance is to give everyone an equal way of life. No one would be oppressed based on religion or ethnic origins regardless of how it may benefit the majority.
Rawls’ attempt to define justice as fairness within the confines of the original position in A Theory of Justice establishes a deontological ethic. Rawls’ theory prioritizes individual liberty with equality to illustrate the deficiencies of utilitarianism. Despite criticism from Sandel, Rawls’ justice as fairness theory adequately defends a redistributive system for the entire society while addressing the inequality of luck. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to provide an alternative to belief in utilitarianism and intuitionism with the justice as fairness theory. 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.
John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice presents an ideal society based on several simple principles. While the system Rawls suggests is well constructed, it is not without its flaws. I will now attempt to explain Rawls’ idea of Justice as Fairness and explain where the system fails. John Rawls presents a theoretical state of human nature which he refers to as the original position. In this original position, everyone must come to together to form a good society, one in which everyone is treated fairly.
An egalitarian’s doctrine reflects that it is desirable that people 's condition be made the same in any respect or that people ought to be treated the same in any respect. Also egalitarian might rather be one who maintains that people ought to be treated as equals, as possessing equal fundamental worth and dignity and as equally morally considerable (Gibson, 2014, p. 114) b. Contributors: i. John Rawls (1921-2002), a contemporary egalitarian who wrote a book in 1972, a theory of justice stated that we are better off through social cooperation than living alone by our own efforts (Gibson, 2014, p. 114). 1. He believed, “no one should be advantaged or disadvantaged by natural fortune or social circumstances (Gibson, 2014, p.
The first principle is about ensuring that everyone individual is given the most basic resources to ensure the compatibility with others of the society. The second principle speaks of creating a context to which social and economic positions. Both theorist have different interpretations of the liberty that and individual has and due to this creating major differences in how they view society as a whole as well as the individual , government’s role in society , justice , freedom and social good and or social we... ... middle of paper ... ...asic structure of society. His concepts of this is that justice is fairness , for society’s based upon social institutions being fair to all cooperating individuals of society, regardless of their race , gender , religion, class origin. “Rawls also emphasizes publicity as an aspect of fairness.
John Rawls begins Justice as fairness, by identifying the fundamental purpose of society as to provide justice through a social contract; to achieve justice is to attenuate any social and economic inequalities throughout the course of citizens’ lives and achieve equal opportunities for all member of a society despite predispositions such as gender and race. To bring this normative idea into perspective, Rawls asks individuals forming a society to adopt a “veil of ignorance,” an attitude in which no one knows what place he or she would occupy in the society to be created, when it comes to choosing policies for a society so as to make sure that the rules would hold highest considerations for those in the most unfortunate positions of society. In the course of articulation, Rawls identifies two principles: “Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the scheme of liberties for all; and [and the second principle being] social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions; first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle)” (Rawls pg. 42). 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.
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. One strength is the inherent compulsion to look after the interests of the entire society through the Veil of Ignorance. One is unable to look after the interests of a single particular ethnic, political or social grouping because of uncertainty regarding which groups they will belong to within society, so they grant all individuals “freedom of thought, [religion], personal and political liberties” . This establishes a precedent of equality for all and ensures a fair standard of living.
Two advantages of the difference principle will be discussed and analyzed; the first advantage is that it is morally right or fair. The difference principle represents justice and equality, even if a person receives lesser income than another person, the way they are treated in society and the compensation they receive is more than enough to regulate the inequalities that are present. Rawls defines justice as, “the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought” (3). The fact that it is just should be one of the first aspects that the people in the original position should consider when deliberating between the principles as it is uncompromising by being the first human
Social justice is fairness, an act that shows regard and looks after the safety and rights of our fellow human beings. Social justice requires that the rules of society are fair for all and that all people abide by these rules. Equality is a major context in social justice and plays an important part in social fairness issues, for example fair treatment given to people and treated as equal persons by having their basic needs met (Buettner-Schmidt & Lobo, 2011, p. 948-952). However these principles usually come into conflict making it difficult to have these objectives met. Social justice is related to individual’s being respected, being treated fairly and given dignity without showing bias.