Caroline Ey POL 304 Professor Shaw Review 3 5/8/14 I. As one of the interpretations of the second principle of justice as fairness, Rawls argues that “democratic equality” is the best avenue for citizens to realize their life projects, as meeting of the difference principle with fair equality of opportunity. The second principle states that “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all” (Rawls, 53). With an unequal distribution of situations, the purpose of society “is not to establish and secure the more attractive prospects of those better off unless doing so is to the advantage of those less fortunate” (Rawls, 65). 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). 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. Beyond Rawl’s principle of redistribution towards the least well off, there is no principle beyond addressing the situation of burdened individuals.
Rawls’s “Original Position” might be his single most important contribution to moral and political theory, as we know it. However its basis does not consider its application to women and the family, and if they take part in “a basic social structure” as defined by Rawls. I found it very difficult to be sure of this. Rawls says this regarding families and the basic structure...
Rawls’ thinks that the modern liberty is the kind of freedom modern individuals are able to enjoy. He states that there are two things that are appropriate to democratic society, and they are justice and tolerance. Rawls presents us with two principles of justice that the citizens have to follow in order to be truly free; they are equality of rights and inequality benefits least advantaged member of society. In order to be completely free and exist in the society all you need to do is follow these two basic and most important rule. Furthermore, Rawls mentions that there is so much diversity in our democratic society, that we are more of society of strangers. You are free to do whatever you please and free to take responsibility for yourself, you are your own validation. With that he also brought out, since the institutions follow the two principles of justice, citizens can put their trust in them. In Rawls sense, as long as we follow the two principles of justice then, citizens are completely free to do whatever they wish to
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...
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.
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
... the like” (“John Rawls And The Veil Of Ignorance”), and no one knows the type of society into which they will be entering. Rawls then encourages the reader to make decisions regarding the Social Contract while maintaining a position behind the Veil of Ignorance. The rationale for this exercise is to show the reader that they often make decisions regarding political and social policies from a specific unique perspective, without regard to how that policy might affect others than themselves. Rawls explains “if a man knew that he was wealthy, he might find it rational to advance the principle that various taxes for welfare measures be counted unjust; if he knew that he were poor, he would most likely propose the contrary principle” (“John Rawls And The Veil Of Ignorance”), so it is best to place restrictions by imagining a situation without this personal information.
Daniels states that by not having access to adequate health care, disease and disability affects people’s “normal species functioning”, thus disabling the “equality of opportunity” portion of Rawls’ principle. Daniels claims that the legal right to adequate health care enables people to keep their “normal range of opportunities.” In this way Daniels’ assertion ensures that the “fair equality of opportunity” component stays intact by revitalizing the disabled and diseased. Hence, the right to basic health care resources for all ensures the “fair equality” portion of Rawls’ principle. Daniels’ defends his claim of the right to health care on the basis of the fundamental theory
On the other hand while Rawls makes a compelling case for the redistribution of wealth with focus on the poor, his arguments assumes that people can be made to act as rational, disinterested individuals. While he tries to that notions is highly impractical. It may prove impossible to institutionalize a system that can force people to act out rationally. His 'veil of ignorance' can be a good way to interpret the justice of fairness but I can see no way to practical apply this principle. There is no meaningful way in which the people can strip themselves from their individual identities. Also, Rawls argues for to ‘maximize the minimum’ approach of distribution. It can be argued that if equal opportunities exist then why not try and maximize the overall wealth.
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
...f which merit is accounted. It may be concept that this equality than the differences principle, because big social and economic inequalities exist, even when they are to the benefit of the worst off, will assist to seriously impair the values of the political liberties and many shares towards fair equality of opportunity.
Rawls creates a hypothetical society, via a thought experiment known as the “Veil of Ignorance,” in which all that you knew of yourself is eliminated from your mind to allow you to come to a rational decision on how you would like your society to be organized. Rawls principle is that under a social contract what is right must be the same for everyone. The essence of Rawls' “veil of ignorance” is that it is designed to be a representation of persons purely in their capacity as free and equal moral persons. Out of this experiment Rawls provides us with two basic p...
While Nozick’s vision of a society based around protecting each individual’s freedom and right to self-ownership seems enticing, it would actually lead to the exact kind of captive life that he seeks to avoid. Governments are not the only bodies that can infringe on the rights of others. Even with regulations in place to prevent active infringement on the rights of others, there are avenues for those with more resources to exert
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.
Liberal philosopher, John Rawls, has been credited as being one of the largest contributors to the field of social justice of the twentieth century. In his book `Justice as Fairness', Rawls describes his views on the issue of justice in a social sense and outlines the major features of his theory of justice. From his discussions on this topic, one could derive a legitimate assumption of how Rawls' would apply his views on justice to the question of how we should respond to poverty, this I have done in the final segment of my essay.
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.