Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Justice versus utilitarianism
Justice versus utilitarianism
Principles of equality and diversity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Justice versus utilitarianism
Justice versus utilitarianism
Principles of equality and diversity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Justice versus utilitarianism
On the 23rd of April, 1939, Huey Long delivered his national radio speech, “Every Man A King”, in which he addressed the lack of distribution of wealth prevalent within America during the Great Depression. He outlines in his speech his proposed the Share Our Wealth program in an effort to more equally distribute the vast amount of wealth in our country and to help mitigate the obvious distinct differences of one's economic prosperity. Through the rhetoric technique of hyperbole and allusion along with the logical fallacies of argumentum ad numerum and playing on emotions, Long is able to continuously untruthfully spread his ideas on the reason and necessity of redistributing the wealth in America. The use of hyperbole throughout Long’s speech allows him to further emphasize his points and to prove to listeners how great of a problem unequal wealth is within the United States.
It is expected that a judge’s decisions be unbiased, but by allowing social identities to be present in decision making would cause this to be not only implausible, but practically impossible. The major criticism seems to develop from her disagreement with the statement “a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases” (Alcoff 122). To me, this statement seems to imply that judges and justices are under the impression that they invoke the ideal version of John Rawl’s ‘veil of ignorance’, a thought experiment in which Rawls implores us to imagine we are in a rational, conscious state before we have any perception of what sort of circumstances we will be living in; among other things, this is to help make laws fair for everyone. Basically, judges and justices who agree with the statement above seem to think they are making decisions and coming to unbiased conclusions from behind a veil of ignorance. However, they are not exactly achieving this, in fact is seems that it is beyond the bounds of possibility.
Rawls states that equality of opportunity represents, “… the background institutions of social and economic justice,” that help those who are most disadvantaged (Rawls 288). Through his own story, Moore displays how education allows those who come from essentially nothing can achieve success. It gives, “… a reason to believe that a story of struggle apathy, and pain… can still have a happy ending,” (Moore 183). Rawls also believes in the, “… equal opportunities of education for all regardless of family income” (Rawls 286). Both see education not only as providing knowledge for all people, but also resources and role models, as the most direct and effective method for creating greater social equality within a
Rawls feels that the difference principle “permits income inequalities as just only if incentives and effort of the people who are at an advantage ultimately help the people who are at a disadvantaged (Sandel 2010, p.158). Therefore applying this principle to the wealthy resort owner is in line with Rawls difference principle because it doesn’t matter what Chuck Fowler makes in wealth, what matters is according to Rawls, “the basic structure of society” (Sandel 2010, p.152). Chuck Fowler in his original position, benefits the citizens that are not as well off as him. Setting aside Chuck Fowler’s income, the difference principle exerts his rights and duties, income and wealth, power and opportunity and permits that inequality as long as it is allocated to the
[3]In a thought experiment proposed by philosopher John Rawls, individuals are asked to imagine designing a just society under a veil of ignorance, a concept urging people to prioritize fairness and equality since they can't predict whether their social structures will advantage or disadvantage them. Similarly, [4]Dr. King stresses a fair and harmonious society in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," except that he focuses on solving existing problems rather than creating a whole new society. The most fundamental difference between Dr. King and John Rawls is that Dr. King confronts a real problem that exists in a real society. In contrast, John Rawls only proposes a theoretical solution.
John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government is most known for his justification of private property, but there are many other theories, though not as popular, that are equally as important. One of these is his justification of inequality, which will be covered in this essay. Locke says that until the invention of money, there was no point to accumulate more property, or wealth, than one could use because it would spoil. That changed after the introduction of money because money does not spoil, which allows people to accumulate more than they need. Locke argues that since men agreed to use money as a way to fairly possess more than they could use, they also agreed to the consequence of inequality.
“The article argues on ideas of fairness and freedom as a part of contemporary America’s public morality, Topics discussed include pleasures of giving and exercising one’s faculties in a market economy, extent and intensity of competition in a mature capitalist society and distribution of income and individual inheritance of wealth” (Scialabba). Many capitalists often do what they want because they have money to do so. Many capitalists are to a degree, selfish. It is justified, however many worked hard to
As much as people hate to admit it, society and the world revolves around money. Whether someone wants to go to college, own a house, support a family, live luxurious etc all these things are dependent on wealth. So, knowing that the top one percent wealthiest people in the U.S owns more than the other ninety-nine percent combined is a little terrifying, and it’s partly due to the income inequality in the U.S. When there are people supporting their families on minimum wage and no one has taken action it’s time for a change. So, when it comes to the subject of wealth everyone will agree that is necessary to live. Where this consensus ends, however, is whether income inequality actually exists.
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
The issue surrounding the wealthy class and their abundance of money is one that has been prominent for a long time. For many, the seemingly endless fortune these elite class people sit on has been deemed to be unfair and unnecessary, especially when there are people around the world who are not making enough money to obtain basic necessities. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, believes that the solution to this monetary problem is for the wealthy to simply donate money they don’t use on basic necessities back to the people in need. Although giving back to the less fortunate could potentially help in fixing many problems, prosperous people should not be obligated to donate money they “don’t need” to various organizations because since
For many decades the economic growth of American has shifted to different standards. Each generation of growing up in America can and will face different economic situations than the generation before them. It is a part of circular flow of economics. One factor that is brought up, especially in recent years is income inequality. During a debate hosted by intelligence squared, two sides argued the notion the rich in America are taxed too much.
In Rawls’ paper, “Two Concepts of Rules”, he sheds light on fact that a distinction between justifying a practice and actions that fall under said practice, must be made. This distinction, according to Rawls is crucial in the debate between Utilitarianism and Retributivism, more specifically in defending the Utilitarian view against common criticisms, which will be addressed further in this essay. This essay will be examining the troubling moral question that Rawls addresses; The subject of punishment, in the sense of attaching legal penalties to the violation of legal rules. Rawls acknowledges that most people hold the view that punishing, in broad terms, is an acceptable institution. However, there are difficulties involved with accepting
In this essay we will go over why Nozick rejects Rawls’ idea and what Rawls’ response to this rejection would be. Rawls ' argument that natural talents should only be used if they can benefit others stems from his belief that people with such abilities are undeserving of them (seeing that they did not work to achieve them) and, therefore, they will only be useful if they use these talents for the oppressed. Mark R. Reiff explains this in his work, “Exploitation and Economic Justice in the Liberal Capitalist State”, where he says that Rawls believes
Rawls’s Justice as Faireness On one influential view, distributive justice concerns the fair sharing of the burdens and benefits of social cooperation (Rawls, 1971). The general concept of this theory is that, all social primary goods, liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of selfrespect are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored (Piccard, 1971). John Rawls proposes the following two principles of justice: » Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all.
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.