ipl-logo

A Theory Of Justice By John Rawls: Public Administration Perspective

3068 Words13 Pages

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

Show More
Related
181 Words | 1 Pages

Justice William Brennan and Attorney General Edwin Meese held different views on the interpretation of the Constitution when it came to ruling in a case. Brennan held the view that judicial review should be done constitutionally, but to keep human dignity in mind when ruling in a case. Brennan makes his opinion on the matter known saying, “The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights solemnly committed the United States to be a country where the dignity and rights of all persons were equal before all authority.” (Brennan). Unlike Brennan, Meese believed in sticking strictly to what the constitution stated for most matters.

Read More
1122 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
795 Words | 4 Pages

When are two people equal, or what makes something equal or unequal? Do laws make something just or unjust? When defining the word ‘fair,’ one must also define words such as ‘unfair,’ ‘justice,’ and ‘equality’

Read More
675 Words | 3 Pages

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?

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
635 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
1473 Words | 6 Pages

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

Read More
963 Words | 4 Pages

Sandel, Michael J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Introduction & Background Information In the book, Justice:

Read More
689 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
1035 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
1508 Words | 7 Pages

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.

Read More
1751 Words | 8 Pages

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.

Read More
894 Words | 4 Pages

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

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
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 A Theory Of Justice By John Rawls: Public Administration Perspective

Related Topics

Open Document