In this kind of fair society, decisions and social acts will be made without bias or predisposed advantage of a group of people against others. Rawls’ experiment makes us think deeper and objectively which kind of society we would think just. When a political decision is made, we should try to use the veil of ignorance in order to see how fair this measure
Rawls was not happy whit the original arguments about what makes a social institution just. The utilitariam argument says that societies should pursue the greatest good for the greatest number. This argument has many problems, excpecially that it seems to be consistant with the belief of majorities over minorities. The institution argument holds that human intuit what is wright or wrong by some innate moral sense. Rawls attempts to provide a good account of social justice through the social contract approach.
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.
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
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.
John Rawls and Robert Nozick are well known as the most eminent political philosophers of the U.S in the late twentieth century. Both of them have had their views of justice and are reviewed and explained as follows: Rawls did a work in 1971 and was about A Theory of Justice. This was his major work that he did, and it greatly assisted to shape a social justice concept, which is social democratic and liberal. He provided a theory that represented an alternative to utilitarianism.
Recently there has been a boiling debate on whether or not cheerleading is a sport. After having a self-debate I made the decision that I personally do not believe that cheerleading should be considered a sport. Cheerleading goes back into the 1800’s and still lives today. Cheerleading first started out as an all-male activity at college football games in the 1800’s. In the 1920’s cheerleading started to excel more in the women’s direction.
If punishment can be shown to promote effectively the interest of society, then it is justifiable, otherwise it is not. Seeing as the main characteristic of Utilitarianism is to maximize utility (i.e happiness/good), it consequently follows that punishment should be applied when it leads to improved overall circumstances in a given situation. One main argument for punishment in the Utilitarian view, is that of the deterrent effect it has, hence, threatening potential offenders in order to discourage them from breaking the law. This places the practice of punishment under strictly preventative and deterrent means. In light of this, Rawls points to the shortcomings and common criticisms of the Utilitarian model for justifying punishment.
Rawls holds that Justice cannot come from utilitarianism since the doctrine is consistent with undesirable form of government whereby a greater happiness of the majority is achieves though pure negligence of the minority. In 1999, Rawls published the Law of Peoples which is the principle focus of this thesis which explicates and expound in depth “the political conception of right and justice in relation to international relations and its applications.” From his childhood experience of the discrimination of the children, Rawls argues that “justice consist in the basic principles of the government that free and rational individuals would agree to in the hypothetical situation of
John Rawls believed that if certain individuals had natural talents, they did not always deserve the benefits that came with having these abilities. Instead, Rawls proposed, these inherent advantages should be used to benefit others. Although Rawls makes an excellent argument on why this should be the case, not all philosophers agreed with his reasoning, especially Robert Nozick. Nozick believed in distributing benefits in a fair manner in accordance with the Entitlement Theory, which has three subsections: Just Acquisition, Just Transfer and Just Rectification.
Healthcare is a prime example of Rawls theory of distributive justice in the everyday world, although the U.S. is still catching up on the idea of universal healthcare, in Europe it is the standard. Citizens that work is taxed a certain percentage every month, while workless citizens are covered through a healthcare program sponsored by their government, which operate off taxes, and donations. Doctors’ visits and test essentially cost nothing for the patient. Although health and health care are not directly covered in Rawls theory of Justice, modern day philosophers and healthcare advocates cite his theories to elevate their arguments. Applying his two principles to Justice to healthcare, as Norman Daniel formulates questions and answers using Rawls theory to which about the morality of universal healthcare like, “Are people entitled to a certain level of healthcare?
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.
He believes that all people in a society are free, equal, and have a drive for cooperation with each other. Once the grounding principles are put into place, then the Original Position acts as a filtering device for Rawls’s principles. The Original Position takes under it “the veil of ignorance,” which helps to block a person’s past and biases, allowing them to choose the best principles for all. From the “veil of ignorance” gets the principles equal basic rights for all, equality of opportunity, and the difference principle. The first principle “requires equality in basic rights and duties, while the second holds that social and economic inequalities...are just only if they result with compensating benefits...particularly for the least well off” (Rawls, TJ p.13).
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.
Discussant Piece Equality of Resources by Ronald Dworkin in Sovereign Virtue The discussion in the class began from taking into account the two theories of equality as provided by Ronald Dworkin in his work i.e. Equality of Welfare and Equality of Resources. But before we discuss equality, it is also necessary to talk about the inequality which usually arises out of the choices made or because of the circumstances. Thus, Dworkin’s theories of equality consider the inequality of any kind and works on the general notion of ‘Equal treatment’.
