ipl-logo

Inequality In Cohens, By G. A. Cohen

786 Words4 Pages

put in effort and made something out of it all, they didn’t and that’s all on them, not myself or the society.
3a. In G. A, Cohens, Where the action is: On the site of distributive justice, he brings up several logical points of why he opposes the Rawlsian argument and the difference principle. The difference principle says, “inequalities are just if and only if they are necessary to make the worst off people in society better off than they would have otherwise been.” Cohen disagrees with Rawls on the matter of which inequalities pass the test for justifying inequality that it sets and about how much inequality passes the test. According to Rawls, the political stance of a society and what makes it just depends upon institutions and institutions …show more content…

A society requires the justice of the institutions and the right and duties of the people inside that society. Cohen believes the principles of justice apply not only to society’s instituted rules but also to the choices that individuals make within said rules. Cohen also states for a society to be just the institutions have to be legally coercive structures, otherwise the society is not deemed as just. Unqualified equality must also be a part of a just society. If unqualified equality is not present in a society, there is no just society. According to the difference principle, justice requires (virtually) unqualified equality as opposed to the deep inequalities in which Rawls thinks justice to be consistent. Rawls believe that talented people will only produce more if they are paid more than the ordinary. The higher wages incentivize them to do work that benefits society. But, Cohen believes none of this makes sense if the talented people affirm the difference principle. If they believe that inequalities are so unjust, then why would they demand higher wages for doing something that they know will help the society all together. Cohen also believes that a society …show more content…

According to the basic structure, the principles of justice govern only the basic structure of a just society. Cohen believes this proposition is unsustainable. Proposition five of the basic structure objection states that citizens in a just society may adhere to the difference principle whatever their choices may be within the structure it determines, and, in particular, even if their economic choices are entirely acquisitive. Cohen tends to believe that proposition five is inconsistent with many Rawlsian statements about the relationship between citizens and principles of justice in a just society. The first objection Cohen offers against the basic structure objection is Fraternity. According to Rawls society displays fraternity. Rawls believe a society’s citizens do not want to have greater advantages unless it advances the people who are less well off. He refers to a family with members who commonly would not wish to gain until they can do so in ways which furthers the rest of the family. He believes now wanting to act on the difference principle has precisely this consequence. Cohen believes that wanting not to gain unless they can do so in ways that further the interests of the rest of the family is “incompatible with the self interested motivation of market maximizers” which the difference principle does not condemn. Secondly, Rawls brings in dignity. Rawls says that the worst of in a society governed by the difference principle can bear their inferior position

Show More
Related
764 Words | 4 Pages

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

Read More
653 Words | 3 Pages

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

Read More
689 Words | 3 Pages

[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.

Read More
1790 Words | 8 Pages

Rawls states in the article “the main idea is that society is rightly ordered, and therefor just, when its major institutions are arranged so as to achieve the greatest net balance of satisfaction summed over all the individuals belonging to

Read More
1048 Words | 5 Pages

The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born in society at some particular position” (Sandel 165). Rawls points out that our society has chosen to ignore the issue of inequity most of the time, so long that the effects of this indifference do not hurt their positions. Moreover, what Rawls has described in this quote is very much evident in our society. The citizens on top–especially upper class white males–have the power to pretend the inequities in American society don’t exist, therefore making our society unjust. More

Read More
775 Words | 4 Pages

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

Read More
984 Words | 4 Pages

Sumner followed the idea that the one who attains more than the other is unequal and superior to the poor. A rhetorical analysis of Sumner’s writing is essential to make a counterargument against Social Darwinism. In order to successfully persuade an audience, you first need to understand the meaning

Read More
1591 Words | 7 Pages

Political theorists, whether they are realists, or liberalists, over the centuries, have come into conflict over what they believe to be the utmost important task of the state. Hobbes believes the most important task of the state is to ensure law and order, rooting his argument in the idea of a sovereign ruler. On the other hand, Rawls, a modern theorist, firmly believes that a state should focus on realising justice within their society. While a utopian society cannot be achieved by either of these theories, I will highlight why Rawls was right in his assumption that the main focus of a state should be to ensure justice for all within their nation, through analysing and comparing the conflicting arguments of Hobbes and Rawls.

Read More
914 Words | 4 Pages

The Principles: All people are created equal All people have basic right that cannot be taken away The government gets its power to make a decision and protect rights from the people When the government does not protect the rights of the people, the

Read More
249 Words | 1 Pages

Rawls would object that having a society with a command economy would take away individuals’ liberty to be “self-governing agents” due to the reduction of basic rights and liberties, thus contradicting his theory of justice (Freeman, p. 51). In a command economy, the government is the sole entity that controls all aspects of the economy, including the allocation of resources. This eliminates the need for markets, thus constricting how goods are transferred between citizens, posing a number of problems for Rawls. Rawls would argue that this goes directly against the first principle of justice, specifically violating the freedoms in the liberty and integrity of the person (Freeman, p. 48).

Read More
913 Words | 4 Pages

This in turn could result in anarchy or social tumult. Many individuals living in challenging conditions or times who have natural talents and abilities most likely would want to keep their benefits in order to help improve the situation they are in. Such people would certainly be unwilling to share their talents with the less fortunate. Rawls disregards this fact, believing that the ones with the natural abilities live in a great environment while the ones who do not carry that ability live in a horrible and corrupted environment.

Read More
1348 Words | 6 Pages

Rawls’ first principle of justice outlines that social institutions in a just society must aim for maximum equal liberty (Rawls, p. 82). His second principle, the difference principle, justifies inequality, but only when it maximally benefits those who are worse off (Rawls, pp. 65-66). Rawls ‘acknowledges that these principles are an oversimplification of distributive justice, but believes they should be applied to the basic structures of society (Rawls, p. 77). Rawls acknowledges that there needs to be regulations on when civil disobedience is justifiable.

Read More
1463 Words | 6 Pages

J RAWLS, The Laws of Peoples-with the Idea of Public Reason Revisited, Harvard University Press: USA, 1999. John Rawls was an influential political philosopher and his publications are widely read. One of which is the Law of Peoples published in 1993 which is the subject of my study. In the Law of Peoples Rawls concerns of the general principles whereby one can uphold and be accept by the liberal people as well as the non-liberal society. “This principle is a standard for which can be useful in regulating the behavior of the citizens towards one and other.”

Read More
742 Words | 3 Pages

THE PHILOSOPHY OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE SYSTEM Ashish Kumar Distributive Justice or Economic Justice or the Fair Share principle, as the name suggests, is basically concerned with the social and economic welfare of the citizens. It says that an equal society is that where there is a fair allocation of the material goods and services between all the sections of the society. John Rawls, the main theorist of Distributive Justice gives two basic principles of Fairness or Fair Share related to Distributive Justice. The Constitution of India, through Article 14, 15, 16, 38, 39, 39(A) enforces the principle of distributive justice. Distributive justice exists in a society where there exists no inequality, so the Indian constitution through these articles tries to remove the prevailing inequalities in the society.

Read More
1821 Words | 8 Pages

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.

Read More

More about Inequality In Cohens, By G. A. Cohen

Related Topics

Open Document