ipl-logo

Rawls Principles Of Justice Essay

969 Words4 Pages

Principles of Justice
Reflective Equilibrium is Rawls’ attempt to argue that persons within society’s judgments are derived from a set of principles, namely principles of justice . These two principles of justice include:
1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others
2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and b) attached to positions in offices open to all.
Equal Liberty
These principles are in order of importance, in the sense that it is not until the first principle is completely satisfied that the second principle can come into effect. These principles are not only concerned …show more content…

Nozick throws a spanner into the works with one simple question. Why can’t this rationale be applied to bodily organs, i.e. people have two eyes and two kidneys whereas others do not. If we look at this difference from a moral point of view we can see that it is arbitrary. However, if we look at organs as common resources we would violate the distinctness of persons which is where Rawls would contradict himself as he thrashed utilitarianism for similar reasons. Nozick further states that if we take seriously the distinctness of persons, we would reject the notion that persons are entitled to be benefited by others.
Nozick and Distributive Justice
As discussed previously, Rawls’ theory on individual rights does not include property rights. Nozick in his theory of ‘Justice as entitlement’ involves three main principles. These principles include;
 Justice in Acquisition – things of the world not belonging to anyone becomes appropriate objects. It seems here that Nozick fails to account for equality between individuals.
 Justice in Transfer – every individual must be able to keep, trade, or give away their property
 Justice in Rectification – This principle rectifies any mistakes in the first two …show more content…

Nozick’s argument boils down to the point that property rights must be included within Rawls’ notion of individual rights to and of self-ownership. From this we encounter a contradictive conundrum, in the sense that for Rawls’ theory to make sense he must reject the idea of absolute property rights, whereas Nozick argues that property rights are individual rights that must be protected. It is argued that the right to property is an inviolable one that should be included in Rawls’ theory. I would argue that property rights extend far beyond the four walls of a home, to an individual having the exclusive right to use their resources as they deem

Show More
Related
901 Words | 4 Pages

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

Read More
1790 Words | 8 Pages

Rawls states in the article “the main idea is that society is rightly ordered, and therefor just, when its major institutions are arranged so as to achieve the greatest net balance of satisfaction summed over all the individuals belonging to

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
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
305 Words | 2 Pages

I personally feel that I agree more with Rawls’ viewpoints on the distribution of wealth than I do with with Nozick’s because I think that Rawls method is a far less biased way of determining how a society should be financially. In Rawls’ Theory of Justice, the starting point for the people in a society is poverty with the aim of having an end result of equal distribution among everyone. In the theory of justice, Rawls describes how he feels a society should be set up equally where everyone has the same advantages. To achieve an equal society, those who are wealthier than others should be taxed, once they are taxed, the wealth should be redistributed to allow for those who are less fortunate to have an equal standard of life. When doing so,

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
1305 Words | 6 Pages

James A. Hammerton in the “ A Critique of Libertarianism” said that not all voluntary exchanges are just as the exchanges can have consequence on third parties, who might not have consented to the exchange. It contradicts the theory from Nozick that the just transfer of goods is a voluntary transfer from the rightful owner to another person, and without mention about the third parties. In additon, as Nozick said that property right is inviolable, it means that any violations should be compensated for. But in real world that may not be the case as it will be impossible for everyone who get benefits from the government compensate to those to contribute the fund. James also believe that the operation of the free market should be come along with some social rules.

Read More
1508 Words | 7 Pages

There are three main principles of Nozick’s entitlement theory: justice in acquisition, which accounts how people come about to own things; justice in transfer, where whatever is justly acquired can be freely transferred as the owner has absolute property rights over it and thirdly, rectification of injustice, which is how to deal with property that has been unjustly acquired or transferred. An example of this is that if one owns a beach house, the

Read More
5992 Words | 24 Pages

In chapter three we discovered that Rawlsian fairness requires that we give up our surplus to provide what others lack. This impartial perspective can only be achieved, however, under what Rawls terms a ‘veil of ignorance’ experienced by an autonomous legislator or an impartial spectator, respectively. Actually, Rawls argues at great length why we should accept the difference principle, namely because no one knows behind the veil of ignorance if he might end up as the least well-off, giving him a reason to adopt a risk-avoiding strategy, i.e. implementing the difference principle. It is prima facie unfair, according to Rawls, to allow the least-well-off to starve to death simply because of their own bad luck, which merely appears to point to ‘formal impartiality’ as ‘formally concerning for all’. In contrary, a just or non-formal impartiality might allow special consideration for persons who have traditionally been marginalized or subject to discrimination.

Read More
1635 Words | 7 Pages

However, it is argued that there are many flaws to Rawls’ theory of justice, particularly in relation to the “original position” and the basic structure of society as the primary subject of justice. This will be argued in the first half of this essay. Another flaw of Rawls’ arises in relation to his two principles of justice, the second principle in relation to distributive justice and the individual’s right to self-ownership. This will be discussed in the latter half of this essay and reinforced by the works of Robert Nozick. A concise conclusion will then be made in relation to Rawls’ theory of justice and whether it truly revived the social contract

Read More
1348 Words | 6 Pages

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.

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
742 Words | 3 Pages

Our Constitution permits and even directs the State to administer what may be termed 'distributive justice '. The concept of distributive justice in the sphere of law-making connotes, inter alia, the removal of economic inequalities and rectifying the injusticeresulting from dealings or transaction between unequals in society. Law should be used as an instruments of distributive justice to achieve a fair division of wealth among the members of society based upon the principle: 'From each according to his capacity, to each according to his

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 Rawls Principles Of Justice Essay

Related Topics

Open Document