ipl-logo

What Is John Rawls Theory Of Justice As Fairness

751 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Four views of distributive justice

John Rawls’ theory of ‘Justice as Fairness’ is a theory that conceives of a society in which all citizens cooperate with one another, live freely and have access to the same basic rights. Rawls’s aim is to illustrate how this ideal can be achieved through the use of a social contract – this approach attempts to reach a consensus about the principles of justice amongst all members of a society (Weinar, 2012:1). Rawls thus seeks a conception of Justice to which all citizens can agree freely and on equal terms.
Within free societies, individuals live by various different views and values, for example religious views, conceptions of what is wrong and what is right. These views can generally not be reconciled – however, Rawls argues that human beings …show more content…

Rawls first addresses the problem of legitimacy questioning how free and equal citizens with irreconcilable conceptions of what is good would be able to justify the distribution of benefits and burdens to one another. In order to solve this problem, Rawls relies on free agreement amongst citizens, thus a conception of justice that all members of a society can agree to on equal terms (Weinar, 2012:4). Secondly, in order to ensure a stable society, the conception of justice must rest on an overlapping consensus amongst citizens – thus individuals will support the same basic law of society for contrasting reasons which are directly related to each one’s own moral beliefs. The achievement of stability in a society, according to Rawls, is directly related to how close a society is to achieving ‘reflective equilibrium’ – in ‘reflective equilibrium’ all individual beliefs held members in a society cohere perfectly with one another, for example my political judgements would support my general political convictions which would in turn support my abstract beliefs about myself and my world. – although this is unattainable, it can be used as a method for justifying our beliefs (Weinar, …show more content…

Under this ‘Veil of Ignorance’, all parties are initially placed in the same position – they are all unaware of their race, class, ethnicity, gender, age, natural abilities or moral views. In addition, all parties are also ignorant of the current political system of their society – this allows them to decide on principles of justice that would benefit all citizens equally, irrespective of who each individual is, ensuring that parties make a reasonable, fair and rational agreement (Weinar,

Show More
Related
1649 Words | 7 Pages

The essence of decision making – and, in turn, the essence of politics – is compromise: compromise in both positive and negative aspects of a possible solution. And in every decision- making process, the most efficient way may not be the one that is most followed. People may follow suit to others, depending on their beliefs, on their personal inclinations, and their opinions on the matter. And yes, these idiosyncrasies in every individual eventually show themselves as they decide on the matter as a whole. Less-informed people, on that matter, are more likely to choose a less efficient solution, yet there are exceptions for both parties: more informed people are also likely to give out more convoluted solutions to simple problems.

Read More
1848 Words | 8 Pages

She makes the case that social hierarchies can persist because dominant groups frequently have more access to public discourse and decision-making processes. In order to remedy this, Fraser suggests the concept of a "politics of recognition," which entails appreciating and acknowledging the experiences and viewpoints of oppressed groups while ensuring that they receive an equal opportunity to participate in public debate and decision-making. This theory of the public sphere emphasizes the need to build inclusive public spheres that enable democratic dialogue and debate among all members of society, regardless of their social or economic status, as well as the significance of recognizing the diversity of perspectives and experiences within

Read More
1048 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
278 Words | 2 Pages

John Stuart Mill’s essay, “On Liberty,” and Herbert Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance” each argue the value of tolerance in society. Their arguments converge in the belief that the majoritarian argument can be harmful, but diverge in their ideas about the value of free discussion of opinions. As a whole, Mill and Marcuse have contradictory arguments about the value of tolerance. Mill and Marcuse each assert that the opinions of a society 's majority can be repressive and harmful.

Read More
809 Words | 4 Pages

Iris Marion Young believes in the idea that citizens must often put in much time and efficacy to gain a small reform and be involved with politics. Most of the time, uncertainty shadows democracy, and thus, Young believes that there should be a form of government that focuses on the connection between democracy and justice. This is why Young argues that democracies tend to reinforce social, economic, and political inequalities that influence injustice. Young introduces two models of democracy; aggregative and deliberative democracy. She relies on deliberative democracy as an ideal model to support the connection between democracy and justice.

Read More
758 Words | 4 Pages

A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue” (Rawls Theory of Justice). Justice is an immutable character that cannot be transferred or withheld from certain people, not even for the sake of the “greater good.” Each individual has a right to justice as much as they do to air; it is a basic principle of being alive. If our institutions and laws, though sworn to uphold and protect justice, violate our innate rights, then they must be overturned to service the needs of justice over politics. Our government, specifically our legislative branch, was built to preserve the quality of justice in our country and to protect the rights of the people.

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
573 Words | 3 Pages

Introduction John Bordley Rawls is said to be one of the most notable and controversial American political philosophers of the 20th century. John Rawls is most known for his descriptive and controversial book "A Theory of Justice" which focuses on all citizens being given equal and fair rights through a system made up of equal liberties for all. Rawls attended Princeton University and later obtained a bachelor 's degree. After receiving his degree, Rawls enrolled in to the army and served as an infantryman till he discharged in 1945. John Rawls was a religious and devoted Christian who had even considered studying Priesthood, but after witnessing such ghastly deaths in the

Read More
1991 Words | 8 Pages

We can learn something from Rawls theory of distribution. Rawls' position is comparable to a market economy in which wealth is distributed through the tax and welfare system. A distribution of wealth is what most people would regard as fair and just. Rawls believes we cannot do anything that isn’t in the interest of the lowest earners. His belief is that we all have an equal right to life’s liberties.

Read More
1120 Words | 5 Pages

Modern democracies can capture a greater variety of opinions and give different social groups' interests more weight by involving a wider range of citizens in the political process. This inclusiveness helps to improve decision-making and create policies that are more sensitive to the welfare of the entire

Read More
1209 Words | 5 Pages

The relativist side argues that community itself is that which generates the conception of justice, while the universalist side emphasizes the inherent value of community. Among the latter, two prominent proposers are Michael Sandel and Johnny Taylor, who respectively challenge the idea of a self as prior to its ends (i.e. the liberal notion of autonomy), and the notion that an anti-perfectionist state follows from a commitment to individual liberty. Both raise a significant challenge to liberalism, specifically to its Kantian basis. This has been answered in a variety of ways, most significantly through Rawls’ reformulation of his theory in “Political Liberalism,” which was a strong basis for the pragmatic response that Stephen Macedo elucidates to the limits of community and social values. Throughout the paper, I will present the various reasonings of these thinkers, in addition to engaging critically both with the arguments themselves and on the validity of the responses that the liberal school

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
1901 Words | 8 Pages

Are Video Games Good or Bad for Society? A Brief Look at How Video Games Have Affected Society By: Sam Hawkwood Over the past several years, games have received a lot of attention because of their content.

Read More
1288 Words | 6 Pages

Early Enlightenment thinker John Locke presented philosophies which championed inalienable rights: life, liberty, and property. Liberty, in particular, becomes a most crucial topic in the debate deciding under what conditions the state should prohibit speech offensive to individuals or groups. More than a hundred years later, John Stuart Mill built upon and constructed reformed ideas that contrasted the early enlightenment and would transition to the Mature Enlightenment. In his works now classified as neoclassical utilitarianism, Mill also adds invaluable perspectives on societal progression and truth, which add to the everlasting discussion. While Locke’s philosophy would justify that governments can legitimately ban speech because of consent and humans’ impersonal ownership of themselves, Mill’s compelling ideas on progression and truth better avoid the slippery slope of setting precedent for limiting speech- a power a

Read More
761 Words | 4 Pages

Communitarianism in its modern form began as a reaction to the groundbreaking book A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, published in 1971. In this book Rawls makes an assumption that the main task of government is to “secure and distribute fairly the liberties and economic resources individuals need to lead freely chosen lives”(add reference or reshuffle wording), this is an assumption that communitarian thinkers dispute. Communitarian belief is drawn primarily from the insights of thinkers like Aristotle, whose Politics asserts, contrary to Rawls, that the “full development of individual capacities presupposes a certain kind of political community”(aristotle reference needed), and Hegel who links the moral ideals of the individual to ‘sittlichkeit’

Read More

More about What Is John Rawls Theory Of Justice As Fairness

Related Topics

Open Document