John Rawls: Public Administration Perspective John Rawls was the most significant political philosopher in the United States during the 20th century. His work revitalized discussions of social equity in public administration and provided a focal point for critical reflection about social institutions. Publishing in over a hundred articles and books between 1950 and 2002, Rawls presented most of his ideas in three books: A Theory of Justice, [1] Political Liberalism, [2] and Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. [3] This paper attempts to look at the development of the theory of justice within these three books, a discussion of its significance for public administration and public policy, and a summary of criticisms. A THEORY OF JUSTICE A Theory of Justice is presented in three parts dealing with Theory, Institutions, and Ends. The first of these is undoubtedly the most important, as it presents the very idea of justice as fairness. Parts two and three concern the application of principles of justice and the relationship between these principles and the good (following the Kantian tradition of distinguishing the ‘‘right,’’ which concerns minimally necessary moral requirements, and the ‘‘good,’’ which concerns …show more content…
‘‘The natural distribution,’’ he says, ‘‘is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with those facts.’’ Accordingly, he suggests that a liberal interpretation of these two principles ‘‘mitigate the influence of social contingencies and natural fortune on distributive shares,’’ by requiring, for example, that ‘‘free market arrangements . . . be set within a framework of political legal institutions which regulate the overall trends of economic events, and preserves the social conditions necessary for fair equality of
Rawls’ idea of justice as fairness, which he presented in his book, “A Theory of Justice,” emphasizes the importance of equal opportunities and equal distribution of wealth and resources in society. This idea resonates with me because, as someone who values fairness and equality, I believe that everyone should have the same chance to succeed and live a fulfilling life. Rawls’ work has taught me to be more aware of societal inequalities and to work towards creating a fairer and more just
Gluacons argument expresses how justice is conventional and that justice is man made. This paper will discuss and analyze Gluacons explanation of the four premises to give his conclusion on the nature and origin of justice. The nature and origin of justice is broken down by discussing that “nature” is also known as what justice is. Origin is expressed as how did it come about?
The word ‘fair’ or ‘fairness’ cannot be reduced to one definitive phrase. Although something is fair to one person, it is potentially unfair to another. No single person can interpret the word ‘fair’ due to their lack of experience in the human world as it relates to other humans. One may think they understand the concept of fairness as getting what he or she deserves, but does that person get what he or she needs? Fairness provokes contrasting opinions in various people, but one common theme is that everyone wants what benefits them.
The legal system in Canada is recognized as a neutral, predictable and impartial system in maintaining social order. Each citizen is guaranteed a fair and equal treatment from the legal system. The law thereby acts like an equal, predictable and calculable system. However, the jury system has questionable actions, unclear purpose and undermines the entire legal system of equality. This paper will demonstrate how the jury system fails and lacks the capacity to judge and indict the accused because of the jurors’ bias and flaws in problem solving.
Justice is one of the most important moral and political concepts. The word comes from the Latin word jus, meaning right or law. According to Kelsen (2000), Justice is primarily a possible, but not a necessary, quality of a social order regulating the mutual relations of men As a result of its importance, prominent and knowledgeable people have shared their views on justice and what it means and how the state is involved in its administration. The likes of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke among others have written extensively on the concept of justice.
In our society, people are either born rich and powerful, having the rights and opportunities that those who are born into lower-class would not have. So why should we live in a government system where we allow these inequities to happen? In Justice, Michael J. Sandel discusses John Rawls’ arguments over defining a just society. Rawls believes that “we should reject the contention that the ordering of institution is always defective because the distribution of natural talents and the contingencies of social circumstance are unjust, and this injustice must inevitably carry over to human arrangements. Occasionally this reflection is offered as an excuse for ignoring injustice, as if refusal to acquiesce in injustice is on par with being unable to accept death.
Therefore, rules of the law embody public interests and values, criminal justice and social justice do not have the clash in nature. Although the injustice of some individual cases is existent because of the limitation of law, it is essential to guarantee the holiness and authority of law. Otherwise, the improper and irrational acts of public opinions would intervene the judicial process, which may lead to the ‘tyranny of the majority’ (Fleck and Hanssen, 2012). It finally may give rise to that the achievement of justice is just words on a page. Besides, Hayek (2012) argues that the main content of justice is to avoid arbitrariness in the process of exercising power.
We would assume that in our diversified society, these rights and freedoms are being extended to everyone without question. However, we face the matter of classifying ourselves based on a group we associate with, whether that be race, ethnicity, or gender. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, these classifications served as a powerful driving force to the inequality many faced. The inequality existed in two forms, inequality of opportunity and inequality of outcome. The first, inequality of opportunity, makes its way into practicality when laws or government decisions are the main driving force for widening social inequality.
It is the vessel that keeps all other values safe. It is the rule of law that governs us, that protects us when we stand alone against those who disagree with us or do not like us because we are different. In Dicey‟s time of laissez faire state in 19th Century, a society based on rule of law could be conceived of making general laws and giving minimum or no discretion to the administration. However, in present social welfare state, since beginning of 20th century, the ideas of individual liberty and human rights have gained prominence, and the conception of Rule of Law has expanded accordingly.
Justice is derived from the root word just, meaning agreeing to what is considered morally right or good; treating people in a way that is morally right; or reasonable or proper. However, society has become so entangled up in the power which certain individuals possess, they forget all about what is “just”. The justice theory is that justice is at the advantage of the stronger. When an individual is described or depicted as being “strong”, that individual is typically of a larger build, possesses some sort of weapon that causes them to be mighty, and is typically large in size. No matter what circumstances arise, these individuals are expected to be victorious in each battle they fight.
Nozick proposes a definition of justice surrounding liberty. An entitlement theory comprising of three principles which result in freedom to be absolutely entitled to property and the self. His argument maintains that patterned principles of just distribution depart from this historical scheme and, in doing so, involve unacceptable infringements of liberty. Nozick defends his entitlement theory with a Wilt Chamberlain illustration. Despite being a persuasive and strong argument, the difficult aspect of this is that Nozick does not clearly tell us how to properly satisfy what those three principles require under the perception that his argument could shut down his patterned theory competitors.
Justice may sometimes be cruel and harsh, in being so, however, it is universal for each and every one of us and we defend our rights in the name of it. When certain violations of justice occur individual entities are charged with different cases for which they are called up on a trial. For everyone to get a fair trial, there are some aspects to the law that need to be respected. The likes are: the phenomena of the “due process”, questioning the credibility of the witnesses and the role of advocates' persistency when defending their clients. All of these, together with a great deal of other principals, have to be there for justice to be done to the whole society.
The aim of this article is to critically consider this proposition from a number of different perspectives. It will first describe the historical evolution of Equity and its connection with the Common Law. Then, it will go through to analyse why this proposition is partially correct by talking about how Equity is now more structured due to the presence of equitable maxims. This argument will be supported using a specific maxim that led to clearer equitable rules. Relevant case law will also be used for illustrating how this maxim is being used by the
They used the concept of procedural justice to describe the fairness of the process by which decisions are made by authorities as opposed to distributive justice which is the fairness of the decisions themselves. Since then an impressive body of research in social, legal, and organizational settings has demonstrated that people place a significant value on the fairness of the process by which outcomes are achieved (MacCoun, 2005). Two explanations have been offered for this phenomenon: an instrumental perspective and a noninstrumental
Distributive justice by definition deals with the distribution of benefits and burdens across members of a society. Over time, philosophers have argued how these benefits and burdens should be distributed as what results from them fundamentally affects people’s lives. John Rawls, an American moral and political philosopher argued as a liberal “Justice as Equality” by means of his three principles of justice: the principle of equal liberty, equal opportunity and difference. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from harm by others, but also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty (Minogue, Girvetz, Dagger & Ball, 2018). Rawls believed that everyone in society should have had equal political rights, although social and economic inequalities existed, but only under the condition that they were to the maximum advantage of the least advantaged people in society.