A shoe made of gold and diamond bertahtakan, designed by designer Christopher Michael Shellis British origin, with a price of USD 1.97 billion. This shoe is claimed to be the most expensive shoes in the latest world 2011.” (Tatanofi.blogspot.co.za, 2011)
"The purpose of this shoe, in fact to create a unique form of jewelry and can be worn on your feet. It is more to, when you find this shoe at a archeological dig thousands of years to come, then these shoes will be considered as a treasure trove," said Shellis. (Tatanofi.blogspot.co.za, 2011)
The most expensive shoes in 2016 is the “Ruby Slippers” at the selling price of US$3 Million. (Abcnewspoint.com, 2015)
I don’t think it is OK for such shoes to be sold, not even to begin with manufactured.
…show more content…
These shoes will benefit maybe 100 people in looking at the people who had a job opportunity when the designing of the shoes was made, the gold and diamonds produced, the advertisements it gave the media, the labour from workers and so forth. We should not be blind by the fact that these shoes produced a lot of economic opportunities to the rest of the world, but it has not produced the happiness of the majority.
I could not agree more with John Rawls’ not liking the idea of common intuitions nor utilitarianism. (Eccles, 2016) Rawls’ “ultimate goal was to define principles for distributive justice which are aligned or more compatible with the ideas of freedom and equality” (Eccles, 2016) John Rawls’ concept was called “The original Position” (Eccles, 2016). This concept was designed to be equal and fair in our views when looking at the principles of justice. The biggest question is what justice would those in poverty, those selling and those buying the shoes
…show more content…
There are 4.3 billion people in poverty and 7.4 billion people in the world, meaning there is (58.11%) chance that we can be born into poverty according to “the veil of ignorance” I believe if we follow the “veil of ignorance and the original position” and the principles that John Rawls’ invented we would have a better decision making system in this world and fairness will not be an
...sumption, creates emission of greenhouse gases and other harmful chemical materials. Once released into the air, it can cause environmental problems, which in turn threatens not only the environment, but also the health of the people who live in it. In order to reduce the use of energy to help protect our planet and our health, the diamond mining industry has implemented renewable energy programs to monitor energy and carbon emission. Since its beginning, mining company PHP Billiton program has saved an equivalent of one million liters of diesel fuel per year at their Ekati Diamond Mine in Canada’s Northwest Territories. The health of the environment and the health of humanity are as one. Whatever we do to our planet, we do to ourselves. Reducing energy consumption of diamond mining not only helps protect our planet, but also helps protect the health of our people.
Williams stated that “dedicating our lives to getting money just to give right back for someone’s brand on our body, when we spent centuries praying with brands on our bodies, and now we pray to get paid for brands on our bodies” (these brands being white owned mostly). This correlates with Walker’s argument to Blacks who seem happy to be shining more shoes as opposed to having a better job, living a better life, not under white people in inferior job positions. Both men touched on the exploitation of Black people, in particular their bodies. Williams further preached about how white America “uses and abuses us, burying Black people out of sight and out of mind while extracting our culture, our dollars, our entertainment like oil – black gold, ghettoizing and demeaning our creations then stealing them, gentrifying our genius then trying us on like costumes before discarding our bodies like rinds of strange fruit”. When Williams speaks on how whiteness gentrifies and takes over, even damaging the potential of Black intellectuals, Walker’s statement in article 2 connected, “it is a notorious fact, that the major part of the white Americans, have, ever since we have been among them, tried to keep us ignorant” (36). Walker also argues in article 3 about the wrong Europeans have committed in which they “have made merchandise of us, and it does appear as though they take this very dispensation to aid them in their infernal depredations upon us” (37). Both men, again in their own way understood the importance of education and that Black people are punished by being educated/not educated, in both stances white America preys upon them. Thus gentrifying our genius statement is about colonizers taking ownership Black bodies as well as of things created/done by Black
1. Famously, John Rawls uses the method of reflective equilibrium (RE) to justify his principles of justice. (1) But the point of justification by RE in Rawls's more recent work is not that easy to establish, since he regards his own work still as contractarian. Accordingly, it is peoples', citizens', or rational deciders' acceptance of the basic notions, methods, and results of Rawls's framework at its different stages (2) that is to establish his Justice as Fairness. Since every single one of us supposedly has already accepted a moral view of the world, though not the same one, it is in the end with regard to that moral view of the world, (3) or in Rawls's terms, that comprehensive theory of the good, (4) that the principles of justice have to be justified. (5) From the point of view of every one of us who reads Rawls's work or from the point of vi...
I will begin this paper by making clear that this is a critique of Rawls and his difference principle and not an attempt at a neutral analysis. I have read the Theory of Justice and I have found it wanting in both scope and realism. The difference principle proposed by Rawls, his second principle is the focus of my critique. While this paper will not focus solely on the second principle, all analysis done within this essay are all targeted towards the scope of influence that Rawls treats the second principle with.
Poverty is a potential outcome for everyone. It’s sneaky and many people fall victim to it every year. No one believes that they have the potential to fall into debt, but it can happen through a string of bad luck, time running short, and other possibilities that can’t be controlled. People who are struggling with difficulty believe that there is no way out because no one will help them. However, there are ways for us, as a society, to help those who are short on income receive the help that they need. Many of the impoverished are thought to be slackers, addicts, or self-destructive to their lives. Society can help each other by dismembering the stereotypes given to people who are underneath the “Poverty Line” that they used as wedges between the classes. Labels given to those who’re poor have nothing to do with who they are as humans.
Economic inequality is ingrained in our society. Because of this fact, many would argue that “that’s just how it is,” but in reality this is not how a community is suppose to function. As Michael Sandel writes in his book Justice, “As inequality deepens, rich and poor live increasingly separate lives.” Sandel makes an excellent point. As economic divisions, such as the ones present in the United States, worsen, the classes diverge on every level. Wealthy people attend different schools, purchase luxury cars, and live in gated communities. Meanwhile, the poor live in squalor, use public transportation, and attend failing schools. Aside from the lack of a quality education making it harder to escape poverty, the poor are from birth at a disadvantage to those on the other side of the economic scale. The United States is not a land of guaranteed equality of result, that is...
...th what little they have, however; why is it left to the poor to have to suffer the consequences of these political choices. The persistence of extreme poverty and social ills speak to a situation that bears for a different approach. It is clear that capitalism and free market solutions cannot spread wealth as advocated. American governments have shown their reluctance to admit this discrepancy through the strategic creations of welfare policies and welfare reform coupled with placing blame upon the citizens who possess little power to change market decisions that govern and effect their lives.
John Rawls’ Theory of Justice attempts to establish a fair and reasonable social account of social justice. To do this, he discusses two fundamental principles of justice, which if implemented into society, would guarantee a just and fair way of life. Rawls is mostly concerned with the social good (what is good and just), and his aim with the Theory of Justice is to provide a way that society could be one that is fair and just, while taking into consideration, a person’s primary goods (rights and liberties, opportunities, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect). The usage of these principles will lead to an acceptable basis of self-respect. That saying, if the two principles are fair and just, then the final primary good,
...e achieved when the Liberty and Difference Principle are enacted with the veil of ignorance. On the contrary, Nozick argues that Rawls’s theory is exactly the sort of patterned principle that infringes upon individual liberty. As an alternative, Nozick provides his unpatterned principle as the ideal distribution of goods in a society. To me, Rawls’s argues his theory in a manner where his principles of justice are not only difficult to achieve, but ultimately are exceedingly deficient in providing general utility. The veil of ignorance has proved to be almost impossible as well as unethical. The Difference Principle in itself is unable to justly distribute property since it clearly violates an individual’s liberty. Since Rawls’s method of distributive justice is rendered unreasonable and inefficient, it leaves us with a clear answer derived from two disjunctions.
Shoes are daily footwear for almost everyone and it's a necessity. Some people tends to only have one pair shoes for the whole year, while some people have over hundreds of shoes. I remember when I was little I had all types of shoes ranging from Nike, Adidas, Jordans, and some designer shoes. Shoes was going for around $30 to $90 back when I was young. Nowadays, a good pair of shoes goes for $100 and if you want shoes for different occasions, it could cost up north of $200 a pair.
Liberal philosopher, John Rawls, has been credited as being one of the largest contributors to the field of social justice of the twentieth century. In his book `Justice as Fairness', Rawls describes his views on the issue of justice in a social sense and outlines the major features of his theory of justice. From his discussions on this topic, one could derive a legitimate assumption of how Rawls' would apply his views on justice to the question of how we should respond to poverty, this I have done in the final segment of my essay.
Shoes are not only worn to protect the human feet. They are also worn because they add the final touch to the style you are trying to create. The history of shoes is very long and nobody really knows when the first shoes were created but we do know that they were originally made to warm the feet. Now, there are many different types and each kind helps you function a different way. The shoe is also made up of many parts and every kind of shoe has different parts then other types. Year by year, shoes have been improving and becoming more and more popular. Now, we have all the equipment and all the materials we need to make the shoe better than ever.
In the world today there is a lot of poverty. There is a great divide
One morning, a well-known gentleman went into a bank in London, and was received immediately by Mr. Alexander Holder, head of the bank. He asked for a loan of fifty thousand Pounds. Mr. Holder asked him to present collateral to cover that large sum of money; the man showed him a crown that belongs to the country. Knowing the risk, Mr. Holder agreed to lend the gentleman that large sum of money if he pays it back in a few days. After the gentleman left Mr. Holder decided to keep the crown all the time near by him, so he took the crown to his home in Streatham. There he lived with his only son Arthur and his niece Mary who was an orphan. He told them about his story with the crown of diamonds. When the father was going to sleep, Arthur asked for two hundred pounds. He refused to give him thinking his son was spoiled by his rich friends who had nothing to do except watch horses. Before going to sleep, he went to check that all windows and doors were locked. He saw Mary at a side window at the hall. She closed it quickly, and Holder noticed that she looked anxious. After he went to sleep, he heard some noise that woke him up; he waited until he heard it again coming from his sitting room. He jumped out of his bed and saw his son holding the crown broken from the side and three diamonds were missing. In grief, he accused Arthur of being a thief and a liar. Meanwhile Mary came in and seeing the crown fainted. Arthur asked if he could leave for five minutes but Holder refused and called the police to take his only beloved son to jail. The police searched the house but could not find anything and advised Holder to get the help of Mr. Holmes the famous detective.
One of the leading political philosophers, John Rawls` foundational idea was that justice is a demand of fairness. Fairness is a demand for impartiality (Sen, 2010). His work, Theory of Justice (1970) is based on the idea of justice and fairness, and he argues that it is the basic structure of society (Hoffman & Graham, 2015). Rawls presents justice as fairness as a `political conception of justice` (Farrelly, 2004). In his Theory of Justice there are two main principles of justice. The first is equal liberty, means that each individual has the right to free speech, to vote or fair trial. The second ones are equal opportunity, and difference principle (Hoffman & Graham, 2015). It is also known as distributive economic justice. Rawls argued that however every human beings are born equal, sometimes they end up being unequal because of the social circumstances they grow up in, and the different opportunities they get (Boucher & Kelly, 2009). These different circumstances can result in unequal earnings and wealth distribution. Income inequality undermining the aim of equal opportunity. Child poverty is a global issue, according to the National Equality Panel report (Child Poverty Action Group,