ipl-logo

John Rawls Theory Of Justice Summary

1386 Words6 Pages

John Rawls’s most prominent work ‘A Theory of Justice’ has been occupying a pivotal position within political philosophy for over thirty years. Rawls aims to introduce a notion of justice that assumes the presence of a hypothetical social contract as the main factor for determining justice. In doing so, he makes use of the so-called original position which implies a hypothetical scenario in which people are put behind a veil of ignorance which denies them any awareness of their physical attributes as well as their socioeconomic circumstances (eg. one’s gender, religion etc.). People participating in this hypothetical scenario must consequently decide about the social justice of a society, as if they were to inhabit the given society afterwards. …show more content…

Rawls’s notion that humans are equal is generally accepted, but such fairness can barely be noticed when looking at the practical implications of his concept of justice. Rawls believes that humans as being free and equal: “view themselves as having, a right to equal respect and consideration in determining the principles by which the basic structure of their society is to be governed” This assumption is accepted in most democratic societies and the social systems are based under such principles. Notwithstanding, Rawls views modern social institutions and systems as unjust as they would grant unfair benefits to certain persons. These notion would be accepted by many people, but Rawls does acknowledge that are by no means equal in their natural abilities or in their mental processes. Despite this, he still argues in favour of the veil of ignorance as it would conceal the individual natural capabilities under the original position. This seems contradicting considering that if the distinctions of natural abilities among individuals are an ineradicable part of human existence and therefore unavoidable; why would Rawls insist on abstracting from them when trying to determine justice on …show more content…

In addition, I outlined the strong confinement in Rawls’s theory of Justice with regards to his perception of fairness. I have argued that Rawls’ perception of fairness is quite distinctive as it seems largely irreconcilable with the perception of fairness that is widely accepted by most people. To ensure a fair and equal treatment for all, Rawls stresses a complete obliteration of national capabilities and circumstances in order to create justice. However, Rawls’s perception of a just society differs a lot from the contemporary society we live in and is therefore of little significance to us. Rawls’ theory of justice fails in annihilating unfairness, and instead exposes another kind of as depicted in the hypothetical examples of the usage of Rawls’s methodology in

Show More
Related
1756 Words | 8 Pages

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.

Read More
628 Words | 3 Pages

There are cities, like Philadelphia, that as time passes they start to grow in size and population as a result they have to create recreational places. As years go by, people start to interact more in recreational places until they become a cosmopolitan canopy. According to the book “The Cosmopolitan Canopy: Race and Civility in Everyday Life” by Elijah Anderson, a cosmopolitan canopy is a place that provides opportunities for new relationships to develop and where people come together to socialize and practice getting along with others. In this reading, Anderson also explains that a cosmopolitan canopy is not just created by the place itself or by the diversity of ethnicity, gender, and social class in and around it but also by the “goodwill that is expressed and experienced by most who enter these premises” (Anderson 11). Personally, I agree with Anderson because in order for something to become a cosmopolitan canopy, there has to be difference on the people in it.

Read More
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
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 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.

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
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
1086 Words | 5 Pages

Often times we associate material gain with enjoyment and fulfillment, but we fail to understand the side most affected by the uninhibited pursuit of gratification. In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, the wealthy do just that; they climb the steps of social class by stepping over those who are poorer. In the novel, the lower class face degradation caused by the wealthy’s selfish desire for pleasure and satisfaction. Specifically, the Valley of Ashes symbolizes Fitzgerald’s criticism for that very inconsiderate pursuit of self-gain, which creates dire consequences for the poor.

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
369 Words | 2 Pages

By definition, justice is supposed to be fair. It is supposed to give the defendant a chance to defend himself. The belief that factors such as prejudice, stereotype or racism take a big part in the final verdict in a courtroom has always been sustained by wrongdoings happening around the globe. Knowing that on average, judges sentence African-American 20% more jail time than Caucasian people who committed the same crime, one can state that justice is hindered by these negative concepts. The two main points that will be further explained in detail along this essay will be about how justice initially seems equal, fair and even, while in the second point, it will be proven that in the end, it can never end up being fair, due to the verdict being

Read More
519 Words | 3 Pages

Though Rawls intends for his conception of rights to operate globally, Nickel’s conception is more readily compatible with trends of global interaction beyond merely a descriptive sense. Operating with a largely monadic conception of global affairs, Rawls claims that in order to respect decent foreign states’ autonomy, sanctions or other noncombatant forms of coercion are impermissible. Given the global society’s ever-deepening reticulation, allowing nations to engage in problematic (though, not morally depraved) behavior permits infringement upon neighboring states. To illustrate, most well-ordered polities are affected by and contribute to global climate change. Under the Rawlsian conception, no restrictive measures are to be taken against American refusals to implement evidence-based climate policy which not only contribute to the perpetuation of climatic aberrations,

Read More
1102 Words | 5 Pages

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

Read More
635 Words | 3 Pages

Harvard political philosopher Michael J. Sandel, in his book Justice, refers to the “pain of sympathy” felt by many “tenderhearted souls” when they are faced with poverty, on the streets and elsewhere, and how they wish that there was something being done to stop it (35-36). He also speaks about the reaction of “hardhearted folk” who feel “the pain of disgust” upon seeing homelessness in their own communities and have no sense of pity for them (Sandel 36). In pondering human welfare, it is easiest to solve widespread problems by thinking of overall, hypothetical solutions. The issue of poverty in America (in many cases) comes from the socioeconomic class system that traps people in the class from which their parents came. A just society does everything it can to level the metaphorical scales that create this trap so that its people’s accomplishments and welfare reflect their talent and effort in the field.

Read More
913 Words | 4 Pages

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.

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 John Rawls Theory Of Justice Summary

Related Topics

Open Document