American philosopher, John Rawls, and European philosopher, Viktor Frankl, are highly regarded for their philosophical intellect. While Rawls work focused on the theory of justice, Frankl’s work were in the direction of finding meaning in life. Although, their works took to varying directions, a distinct correlation can be found in their work as it pertains to ethics and moral development. Rawls, in his works speaks of the four roles of political philosophy, which include:
1) Practical – The discovery of basis for reasoned argument.
2) Orientation – To help people orient themselves within their social existences.
3) Political Possibility – Workable arrangements where support can be gained from real people.
4) Reconciliation – Calming rage and frustration.
These four roles of political philosophy neatly encompass our position in society and the available choices we have when it comes to ethical choices. Additionally, Rawls offers insight into equality, liberty, and the way to reach international tolerance, (Wenar, 2013). Given we live in a free society, there will be disparate worldviews. Citizens will have opinions on religious belief, will hold personal conceptions of right and wrong, will value differing pursuits, and will hold differences on interpersonal relations. Although such differences exist Rawls suggests, “citizens want to live in a society in which they can cooperate with their fellow citizens on terms that are acceptable to all”, (Wenar, 2013, p. 7).
To accomplish a society of reasonable citizens, it is necessary to understand diversity and varying worldviews and accept varying explanations. Doing so requires the skill of relying on life’s experiences, class, and upbringing. When individua...
... middle of paper ...
...etrieved from: http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/rawlcprn.htm#natuduty
Murphy, L. (1966). Extent of purpose-in-life and four frankl-proposed life objectives. (Order No. DC53486, University of Ottawa (Canada)). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,163. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/863202831?accountid=458. (863202831).
Richardson, H., S. (2014). John Rawls (1921 -2002): In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/rawls/
Straus, E. W. (1966, September). Phenomenology: Pure and Applied. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 27(1), 115-117. Retrieved from: http:// http://www.jstor.org/stable/2106149
Wenar, L. (2013). "John Rawls", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/rawls/>.
Rowlands, Mark. The Philosopher and the Wolf . New York : Pegasus Publishing , 2008.
Morreall, J. (1982) ‘Philosophy and Phenomenological Research’, International Phenomenological Society, Vol. 42, No.3, pp. 407-415
Justice is seen as a concept that is balanced between law and morality. The laws that support social harmony are considered just. Rawls states that justice is the first virtue of social institutions; this means that a good society is one structured according to principles of justice. The significance of principles of justice is to provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of the society and defining the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of the society. According to Rawls, justice is best understood by a grasp of the principles of justice (Rawls, 1971). The principles are expected to represent the moral basis of political government. These principles indicate that humankind needs liberty and freedom so long as they do harm others. Rawls states that justice is significant to human development and prosperity.
INTRODUCTION John Rawls most famous work, A Theory of Justice, deals with a complex system of rules and principles. It introduces principles of justice to the world, principles which Rawls argues, are meant to create and strengthen equality while removing the inequality which exists within society. These principles are both meant as standalone laws and regulations, but they can be joined as well. The main function of the first principle is to ensure the liberty of every individual, while the second principle is meant to be the force for the removal of inequality through what Rawls calls distributive justice. I will begin this paper by making clear that this is a critique of Rawls and his principle of difference and not an attempt at a neutral analysis.
This Critical Essay Builds Upon the Concepts of Rawls and King to Examine the Potential for Justice in America
American Philosophical Quarterly 21, no. 3 (1984): 227-36.
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Rawls creates a hypothetical society, via a thought experiment known as the “Veil of Ignorance,” in which all that you knew of yourself is eliminated from your mind to allow you to come to a rational decision on how you would like your society to be organized. Rawls principle is that under a social contract what is right must be the same for everyone. The essence of Rawls' “veil of ignorance” is that it is designed to be a representation of persons purely in their capacity as free and equal moral persons. Out of this experiment Rawls provides us with two basic p...
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 266.
Selsam, Howard, and Harry Martel. Reader in Marxist Philosophy: From the Writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. New York: International, 1963. Print.
I. As one of the interpretations of the second principle of justice as fairness, Rawls argues that “democratic equality” is the best avenue for citizens to realize their life projects, as meeting of the difference principle with fair equality of opportunity. The second principle states that “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 and offices open to all” (Rawls, 53). With an unequal distribution of situations, the purpose of society “is not to establish and secure the more attractive prospects of those better off unless doing so is to the advantage of those less fortunate” (Rawls, 65). The principles of justice are in place to ensure that the “assignment of rights and duties” through the basic structure of society justly distribute both the “benefits and burdens” of social and economic advantages (Rawls, 47).
Martin, Wendy, ed. "Introduction." New Essays on The (Awakening. New York, NY: Cambridge UP, 1988.
middle of paper ... ... The individual in the original position is unlikely to gamble their human rights for the greater good, particularly if they are mutually disinterested, so it is unreasonable in practicality to assume such altruism on their behalf. To conclude, Rawls’ strengths lie in his focus on the individual, protection of liberty, and equal opportunity, which supports a healthy society. The criticisms of his theory include a question as to what is best for society as a whole, dismissal of beneficial inequalities and the potential for society to develop its own code of ethics as it has in reality.
John Rawls and Robert Nozick both provide compelling and thought provoking theories regarding the values of liberty and equality. Rawls focuses on both liberty and equality while Nozick theorizes exclusively on liberty. The ideas of Rawls and Nozick have multiple strengths as well as weaknesses which allow for debate and comparison between the two theories.
Political philosopher John Rawls believed that in order for society to function properly, there needs to be a social contract, which defines ‘justice as fairness’. Rawls believed that the social contract be created from an original position in which everyone decides on the rules for society behind a veil of ignorance. In this essay, it will be argued that the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. First, the essay will describe what the veil of ignorance is. Secondly, it will look at what Rawls means by the original position. Thirdly, it will look at why the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. Finally, the essay will present a criticism to the veil of ignorance and the original position and Rawls’ potential response to this.