“Each person has his or her own plan of life - what is good may vary. Right is set down in the social contract, the same for everyone”. Quote taken from the Chronicle of Higher Education in an article titled: "The Enduring Significance of John Rawls". John Rawls, a political philosopher around the 1950’s but was not well known until the 1970’s. John Rawls was highly recognized and studied at many established colleges such as Oxford, Cornell University where Rawls became a professional philosopher and Harvard. Rawls wrote many series of highly known and influential articles regarding moral, political and philosophical problems. Rawls is well known for many different ideas and theories; however, in my personal opinion “Justice Theories” or “Justice as Fairness” is the most interesting, complex and the most appealing along with my opinions and reason why I agree with the theory that John Rawls has presented. Information taken from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Some quick facts about John Rawls are: Rawls was born February 21, 1921 and died November 24, 2002. Rawls was an American philosopher and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy. John is most known for his book titled: A Theory of Justice published in 1971, the book is now known as one of the primary texts in political philosophy. Rawls received both the Schock Prize for Logic and Philosophy and the National Humanities Medal in 1999. His work in political philosophy starts at a compelling argument that states the most reasonable principles of justice are ones that everyone would accept and agree with. He is one of the major thinkers in the tradition of liberal political philosophy. Rawls unique distinctions between political philosophers are frequentl...
... middle of paper ...
...th the up most regards, fascinating to anyone who takes the time to understand it.
Works Cited
• "A Theory of Justice Summary & Study Guide - John Rawls - ENotes.com." ENotes - Literature Study Guides, Lesson Plans, and More. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. .
• "Rawls, John [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. .
• "Understanding John Rawls: Justice as Fairness (sample)." Scribd. Web. 25 Jan. 2011. .
• "Thoughts on Justice as Fairness and the Redistribution of Wealth « Alt Lifehack." Alt Lifehack. Web. 15 Jan. 2011. .
• Rawls, J. (1993/1996/2005) Political Liberalism (Columbia University Press, New York)
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 266.
“Convincing the non-elite that inequality is morally right. Those most advantaged are justified in giving orders and receiving a greater proportion of valued goods and services, or at least, creating doubts about alternatives. All, individuals strive for cognitive consistency and will develop principles of fairness, such as Distributive Justice. Lastly, there is some evidence for distribution based on need as a result of ability to understand the needs of others. This is called the process of legitimation […]” (2011:461).
Justice has different standards for every group that it is presented upon. Thoreau’s opinions and criticism is strongly stated. Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was described as many things. Thoreau was an author and naturalist with very Republican views. Morals inspired him. He ties in morality with justice many times in his piece. He was as well a pacifist, who was more talk than action. He was an abolitionist who sought justice for minorities. They didn’t have the ability to defend themselves.
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.
Rawls begins his work by defining the role of the principles of justice “to specify the fair terms of social cooperation. These principles specify the basic rights and duties to be assigned by the main political and social institutions, and they regulate the division of benefits arising from social cooperation and allot the burdens necessary to sustain it.” (7) Through these fair principles of justice, Rawls aims to build a realistic utopia. The two principles of justice he spells out in his work are: “Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all; and
Why is it that a person has to offset his initial gain for the betterment of others? Rawls proposes this idea as the criterion for his second principle, the difference principle. What I argue however, is that the difference principle proposes to remove inequality from society but fails in this endeavor due to retaining enough inequality to benefit the disadvantaged, leaving the principle defective in its nature. This will be the question analyzed in this essay where I will first explain the two principles proposed by Rawls as well as the lexical order or priority, which is a central feature within A Theory of Justice. I...
Lott Jr., J. R. (1987). Should the Wealthy Be Able to 'Buy Justice'?. Journal Of Political Economy, 95(6), 1307
Nozick agrees with the liberty principle proposed by Rawls, but he disagrees with the equality principle and the fashion in which resources are distributed. I believe the historical principle of distribution is one strength of Nozick’s ideas. The historical principle of distribution states that the justice of any distribution does not depend on how closely it resembles any form of an equality pattern but how the distribution came about (959). I also agree with the theory that people are entitled to anything they acquired voluntarily and anything that is transferred to them voluntarily (958). Nozick does not agree with redistribution of wealth because taking resources from one person to benefit others is not necessarily voluntary. The biggest weaknesses of Nozick’s idea of equality comes from the idea that taxation and federally funded programs would be unjust forcing everything to be owned privately. This creates the most issues because people are self-interested and the virtue of market may not create the balance which Nozick proposed. Public school systems and public roads being deemed illegitimate would create issues with access. Also, making taxation illegal would make it difficult to have services like a police force, fire department, court system, or penal system because they would have to be paid by the individual directly. The police and court systems could become corrupt
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,
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.
Imagine that all of the sudden memories of your life and everyone you’ve ever known suddenly disappeared. In this scenario, all knowledge you had of your talents, social status, financial standing, physical ability, intelligence and the other characteristics that you viewed could to definitively set yourself apart from others. In other words, everything that made you who you are through years of socialization all of the sudden vanished. To the John Rawls this scenario is called the original position, one where your consciousness has been placed under a “veil of ignorance”. As a thought experiment, Rawls argues that if individuals of a society discuss and define their system of social justice from the original position, the result of the discussion
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. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition.
& 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.
In his theory of justice, Rawls aims to introduce a notion of justice that draws on both Kantianism and Utilitarianism, in that state institutions must universally apply to the notion that they are to respect individual humanity while being consistently conscious of the consequences that their ac...
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.