In Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott’s The Stakeholder Society, a sweeping proposal is introduced to tackle what the authors view as a widening inequality of opportunity within a system that reinforces this disparity. They claim that these growing economic disparities are “profoundly shaping the future of the next generation,” and that, without intervention, long-held distinctly American tenets will disappear from the moral horizon. The authors’ proposed solution is a stakeholding program, whereby all adults upon reaching the age of twenty-one would be guaranteed a sum of eighty thousand dollars, to be spent as they see fit. While the initial goal of the plan is to address economic inequality through redistribution, the authors extend this hope, asserting, “Through stakeholding, Americans can win a renewed sense that they do indeed live in a land of equal opportunity, where all have a fair chance.” This speaks more to a revival of a common citizenship rather than a mere redistribution. This paper will evaluate the proposal of a stakeholder society from the perspective of John Rawls’s work, A Theory of Justice, where Rawls introduces his notion of justice as fairness as a means to determine the moral validity of society’s basic institutions. This paper will attempt to reflect that, while influenced by a Rawlsian ideology, there are certain key differences between the ideals espoused by Rawls and by the authors. Moreover, it will show that while the plan would indeed serve to address certain societal issues, an assessment of its feasibility will prove critical.
Prior to a discussion of the plan’s value, it is necessary to more completely flesh out a description of the proposal. Firstly, the plan would be funded by an annual two per...
... middle of paper ...
...own.” This point is furthered by the suggestion that the eighty thousand dollar stake would act as a tremendous motivator for children to invest in themselves by earning a high school diploma. Thus, while the proposal would not initially address the “moral arbitrariness” of the first generation’s starting points (from birth) subsequent generations would stand to greatly benefit from this proposal. In all, this plan, were it not for the improbabilities surrounding the political appeal of such a proposal, would go a long way to reduce the disparities in starting points between individuals, and hopefully provide for greater economic equality.
Works Cited
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice, revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Ackerman, Bruce and Anne Alstott. The Stakeholder Society. New Haven & London:
Yale University Press, 1999.
America has forever long been looked upon as the land of opportunity, yet for just as long struggled with the actual attainment of equal opportunity by all of its citizens. The lines of this inequality have b...
John Rawls’ theory of justice is one of the most interesting philosophies to have emerged in modern times. It was introduced in the 1970s when A Theory of Justice was published. It was revised several times, with the most recent done in the year 1999. Essentially, the Rawlsian philosophy approaches justice according to the idea of fairness. The idea is that justice is a complex concept, and it could differ according to individual circumstance. Rawls contended that all of us are ignorant about ourselves and about others and, hence, we are not in a place - in such condition - to determine or apply the principles of justice. These positions allowed Rawls to address two contemporary issues that are equally important, but also tend oppose each other’s views: freedom and equality.
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
John Rawls divided up his theory into four distinct parts; the first part consisted of his belief of primary goods, next is the formation of principles of justice, third is the institutionalization of society, and finally the last part of his theory is the actual workings within society . The general concept of Rawls’s theory is, “all primary goods must be distributed equally unless the unequal distribution of any of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored” . In order to analyze this correctly Rawls’ terms must be defined; according to Rawls a primary good are “things that every rational man is presumed to want. Goods normally have use regardless of a person’s rational plan to life is” . Some examples of a primary good are: basic rights, opportunity, and income to name a few. With the unders...
1. Famously, John Rawls uses the method of reflective equilibrium (RE) to justify his principles of justice. (1) But the point of justification by RE in Rawls's more recent work is not that easy to establish, since he regards his own work still as contractarian. Accordingly, it is peoples', citizens', or rational deciders' acceptance of the basic notions, methods, and results of Rawls's framework at its different stages (2) that is to establish his Justice as Fairness. Since every single one of us supposedly has already accepted a moral view of the world, though not the same one, it is in the end with regard to that moral view of the world, (3) or in Rawls's terms, that comprehensive theory of the good, (4) that the principles of justice have to be justified. (5) From the point of view of every one of us who reads Rawls's work or from the point of vi...
...gations that the individuals in the society have towards each other. Rawls indicates that there are public institutions that are present in a just and fair society. He considers the following types of systems that include Laissez-faire capitalism, welfare-state capitalism, property-owning democracy and liberal democratic socialism. Although he indicates that only property owning, democracy and liberal socialism are the ideal systems that satisfy the principles of justice. With reference to the twentieth century, Rawls says that institutions within the United States society play a major role in causing injustices. For example, the extremely expensive campaign systems alienate every individual who is not very rich from running for public office. In addition, the expensive health care policy issue restricts the best care to those who can only afford it. (Rawls, 2001).
I will begin this paper by making clear that this is a critique of Rawls and his difference principle and not an attempt at a neutral analysis. I have read the Theory of Justice and I have found it wanting in both scope and realism. The difference principle proposed by Rawls, his second principle is the focus of my critique. While this paper will not focus solely on the second principle, all analysis done within this essay are all targeted towards the scope of influence that Rawls treats the second principle with.
...s distributive justice. We are a developing nation when it comes to our philosophies, but I am optimistic that with additional ethical participation by citizens in the area of public policy, Americas (like King and Rawls) can still dream of achieving a fair and just society.
Distributive justice requires the philosophical powers of reflection of the greatest theorists. In order to solve certain social issues, the most pragmatic solution must be concocted carefully to solve the biggest loopholes. Michael Walzer is no stranger to the complexity of social inequality. In his book A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, he argues that every society decides on the value of a social good and therefore should distribute those good according to the meanings they have. The social goods (healthcare, office, membership, money, politics, education) are divided into spheres each having their own distributive arguments. Walzer’s acceptance of the pluralistic nature of human group and ideology leads to his argument of a complex equality, one that contrasts the ideas of equality explicit in Rawlsian Liberalism.
In the United States, the gap between the rich and the poor has been substantially increasing over the years. This growth between the rich and poor illustrates the wealth inequality between the social classes in our nation. Although it is impractical to precisely measure the morality of wealth inequality, we can use philosophical thought to determine what makes a political and economic system just. By analyzing the theories of political philosophers, Robert Nozick and John Rawls, it is clear that wealth inequality is morally justified, as long as equal opportunity and concern for justice among a society is provided under certain conditions.
In A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents his argument for justice and inequality. Rawls theorizes that in the original position, a hypothetical state where people reason without bias, they would agree to live in a society based on two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 4). These two principles of justice are named the first and second principles. The first is the equal rights and liberties principle. The second is a combination of the difference principle and the fair equality of opportunity principle, or FEOP (Rawls 1971, 53). Rawls argues that inequality will always be inevitable in any society (Rawls 1971, 7). For example, there will always be a varied distribution of social and economic advantages. Some people will be wealthier than others and some will hold places of greater importance in society. Rawls’s argument is that to ensure the stability of society the two principles of justice are needed to govern the assignment of rights and regulate the inequality (Rawls 1971, 53). Any infringement of an individuals rights or inequality outside the parameters of the principles of justice are unjust.
With the issue of income inequality becoming more salient in present day politics, it has been argued that the United States is doing little to ensure equality of opportunity. Many economists today point to low levels of intergenerational social and economic mobility as evidence of these trends. Philosopher John Rawls’ second principle of justice states that inequalities can exist in society as long as they improve the general wellbeing of the least well off members of society. However, current inequalities in income and opportunities in the United States have been said to violate Rawls second principle of justice, because of their inability to provide the least well off members of society with an improvement in wellbeing. In this paper, I will delineate the argument underlying Rawls second principle, as well as its background, conditions and requirements and justify why Rawls would be correct to assume that current inequalities in income and opportunity in the United States are unjust in regards to the wellbeing of citizens.
Singer’s argument may have swayed many people to donate their dispensable income to children in need despite the fact that it has many fundamental flaws. He argues that we should give away the majority of our earnings to charity. Since Singer wants the reader to donate such a large amount of money, the readers are given no choice but to contribute nothing whatsoever. His solution is not realistic and does not take into account the long-term financial impact this type of donation contribution system would have on a country’s economy.
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.
John Rawls’ Justice as fairness attempts to both define the principles typical of justice and describe what a just society would necessary entail by the conception presented. What is described is not a perfectly good society, as justice is but one virtue among many, but a just one. Specifically, Rawls’ conception is that justice and fairness are one in the same. Using this as a starting point, Rawls focuses foremostly on the practices in a society, rather than any individual action. In this way, he expounds on what is meant by the term fairness and what value that term has in explaining justice. In this paper of three parts, I will first describe Rawls position on justice, including this position’s main principles. Secondly, I will examine