ipl-logo

Overlapping Consensus Analysis

1320 Words6 Pages

Overlapping Consensus
John Rawls’ model case of an overlapping consensus demonstrates the way in which different contents of reasonable comprehensive doctrines can be relevant in different persons’ affirmation of a political conception. On the one hand, he argues citizens themselves decide how their doctrines relate to the political conception while on the other he imposes certain expectations, not only concerning the political and non-political values but also in the very way people relate to their own comprehensive views.
These aspects call in to question the acceptability of political liberalism to comprehensive doctrines that do not give a special place to values like autonomy and rationality. The model case also sees persons’ comprehensive …show more content…

“Suppose three children- Anne, Bob and Carla- quarrel over a flute. Anne says it’s hers because she is the only one who can play it. Bob says he is the poorest and this would at least give him something to play with. Carla says it’s hers because she built the whole thing but no sooner had she finished building than the two tried taking it away from her.” Sen’s approach to justice is a capability based one wherein it is not just the access to primary goods but the extent of capabilities that each individual has to convert these primary goods into lives that they value living and that would determine freedom and ultimately uphold justice. If two individuals have access to the same set of primary goods it does not ensure that they would enjoy the same amount of liberty for reasons like physical limitations and reasons that impose restrictions on capabilities. So even with similar access to primary goods there would be difference in the extent of capabilities to convert it into freedom. There would be no consensus as to what is to be considered as a valued way of life and thus equality of freedom cannot be guaranteed by equal distribution of primary goods. People value different things as good and also have different capabilities to reach the ends that they value. Variations could be related to age, sex or genetic endowments and these …show more content…

Walzer’s main point of contention with this theory is that all the ideas or principles of justice have to be arrived at from pre-conceived notions of rationality. The social sphere of man greatly contributes towards developing this side of him. Rawls’ stripped-down individual is completely removed from this set-up and hence his decisions will not be relevant in a real social context as his ideas of what is good are formulated as a result of what the society around him creates and holds to be good and it is not the result of individual rationality and

Show More
Related
640 Words | 3 Pages

Family is a very a complex thing,there can be many things that can tear a family apart. In life there will be inner family struggles,but you will will need to find a way to work through it. Although the piano has sentimental value to Berniece the piano is not being used,so Boy Willie should get the piano to buy the land. While there is tension between Berniece and Boy Willie it begins to build in a dispute over the family piano. Boy Willie is arguing with Berniece over the piano and says he should get it because he is going to buy land,so he will build of of it which the ancestors would have wanted.

Read More
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
381 Words | 2 Pages

On the other hand, the mother believes that since she grew up using everything that she owned, the heirlooms should be put to use as well. Another thing that will cause disagreements between family members is setting unrealistic expectations for each other. In the story, the narrator describes a hypothetical situation where they are both on a TV show embracing each other. The narrator dreams of having this special bond with her daughter where they reach each others expectations.

Read More
1500 Words | 6 Pages

“We know what we are but not what we may be” is what William Shakespeare wrote for the character Ophelia to say when referring to the uncertainty of consensus in a knowledge claim. With such an inspirational quote, as an inquirer it could be interesting to analyze in what ways “Robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement”. Just like all knowledge claims they can be looked upon from an infinite number of perspectives, thus creating an undefined number of possibilities, nevertheless, to prove the validity of this assertion, it requires to be discussed with reference to two Areas Of Knowledge. The word “robust” according to the Cambridge English Dictionary is essentially the “strong and unlike to break” nature of something. Consequently,

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
250 Words | 1 Pages

Conservatives are identified as a revolution by intellectuals in which abstract theory envisioned a new order for human society. They describe human life and theory as intractable and largely and unyielding to the designs of individuals and groups to alter their essential character. In the 1980s, some conservative thinkers disassociated themselves with Reagan ideology while several conservatives, are referred to as the “Old Right”, expressed insightful reservations about what had become popularly known as “neo-conservatism”. Many differences have arisen between these two factions that share totally different ideological stances.

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
696 Words | 3 Pages

These traits should not be associated with one specific gender as these traits is as likely to be shown by

Read More
1374 Words | 6 Pages

Liberalism is considered the dominant ideology in the 21st century; its primary focus is liberty, personal freedom, equality, and justice. However interpretations of freedom have divided the ideology into two, seemingly separate, strains: classical liberalism, or laissez-faire liberalism and welfare, or social liberalism. While both hold freedom to the highest degree, they are sharply divided over what that means and the role of the government in society. This essay will argue that classical and welfare liberals disagree on the definition of personal freedom, and that welfare liberals have the better case as their argument is closer to the original ideals of liberalism. Liberalism is what is considered “good society” which is based on the

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
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
2201 Words | 9 Pages

A central question in biology is whether observed variation in a particular trait is due to environmental factors or biological factors – sometimes expressed as the nature versus nurture debate. Heritability is a concept which summarizes how heritable a phenotype is, in particular with reference to the resemblance of offspring and parents. Heritability is both a word that is used in common speech and a technical term in genetics (Stoltenberg 1997, Visscher, Hill et al. 2008). Heritability is formally defined as the ratio of additive genetic variance to total phenotypic variance (Falconer, Mackay et al. 1996). Observed phenotypes (P) can be partitioned into a statistical model representing the contribution of both the genotype (G) and environmental

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 Overlapping Consensus Analysis

Related Topics

Open Document