More handpicked essays just for you.
Relevance of john rawls theory of justice
Goal of john rawls theory of justice
Relevance of john rawls theory of justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In his book “Anarchy, State and Utopia”, Nozick asserts that all humans have certain fundamental rights, such as life, health, liberty, and property. And these rights cannot be taken away from the citizens. The state, he claims, as no moral authority over someone's property which has been justly acquired. He claims that if a person has justly claimed his property than the state does not have any jurisdiction to take that away from him. The problem with all distributive principles of justice, he believes, is that they violate some of the basic human rights and are therefore inherently unjust.
Now the next question arises is what just ownership of property means.
According to Nozick, if a person came about in possession of the property justly, i.e. without infringing on someone else's rights, then his ownership is just. So, in essence whether or not a distribution of property is just depends upon how it came about.
Discussing patterned theories, Nozick is of the opinion that such principles deny people's basic rights because they interfere with people’s right to take part in free and fair transactions if they wish to. A Patterned theory is one that define specific principles that govern the distribution of wealth “Along with some natural dimensions”. And to maintain such a pattern, an individual’s rights to liberty have to be violated. *******So no one can forcibly transfer wealth from one individual to another. Hence, any principle that follows a pattern of distribution of wealth any is inherently unjust. So according to Nozick any patterned theory leads to injustice as they infringe upon an individual's basic rights of liberty and freedom. However, Nozick believes that the only instance where someone's wealth can be forcibly ta...
... middle of paper ...
...wealth and property. Additionally, the historical nature of his arguments is very weak point of his thesis.
On the other hand while Rawls makes a compelling case for the redistribution of wealth with focus on the poor, his arguments assumes that people can be made to act as rational, disinterested individuals. While he tries to that notions is highly impractical. It may prove impossible to institutionalize a system that can force people to act out rationally. His 'veil of ignorance' can be a good way to interpret the justice of fairness but I can see no way to practical apply this principle. There is no meaningful way in which the people can strip themselves from their individual identities. Also, Rawls argues for to ‘maximize the minimum’ approach of distribution. It can be argued that if equal opportunities exist then why not try and maximize the overall wealth.
Wole Soyinka's essay "Every Dictator's Nightmare" in the April 18, 1999 edition of the New York Times magazine seems almost prescient in light of the events currently occurring geopolitically. The recent events occurred in Egypt are certainly representative of the themes present in Soyinka's essay; “the idea that certain fundamental rights are inherent to all humanity" (476). Soyinka, the 1986 noble peace prizewinner for literature, portrays not only his well-formed persona in his essay, but also his well formed thoughts, devoid of literary naiveté common in so many of today’s writers. The essay portrays societies as corrupted, but with some elements of innate nobility. The existence of societies is guaranteed by the realization that every individual has undeniable basic rights. Soyinka also presents an overview of the enslavement of individual cultures; to the forces of religion, dictatorship, economic pressures, forced labor, and ideology; presenting the reader strong examples of the world's failure to respect individual human rights throughout history. In his essay, Soyinka’s explores the employment of irony and contradiction, in explaining the paradoxes that have riddled the historical search for just societies.
...l reformer who in 1885 gave a speech known as “An Analysis on the Crime of Poverty.” George explains that it is not a crime to be poor, but poverty is a crime. Meaning, those who are considered to be living in poverty is a victim of crime that either themselves or those around them are responsible for. George also explains how poverty is everywhere. It is something that all nations will be familiar with. It is a time of suffering because of unjust distribution and possession of land. Henry George makes it clear to society that individuals can own something that no man created. He provides a reasoning for those who are in poverty, and explains that man did not create land, therefore you can own it if your heart desires. His resolution on poverty was to put a stop to the unjust distribution of money from the land that man didn’t even create, so it can return equality.
Carnegie’s essay contains explanations of three common methods by which wealth is distributed and his own opinions on the effects of each. After reading the entire essay, readers can see his overall appeals to logos; having wealth does not make anyone rich, but using that wealth for the greater good does. He does not force his opinions onto the reader, but is effectively convincing of why his beliefs make sense. Andrew Carnegie’s simple explanations intertwined with small, but powerful appeals to ethos and pathos become incorporated into his overall appeal to logos in his definition of what it means for one to truly be rich.
Wealth is an article by Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish American, showed his views on their social class during the Gilded Age, the late 19th century, discussing the “rich and poor.” Carnegie in fact was one of the wealthiest men because of his major success in the steel industry.
According to Nozick, “Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)(Nozick, xix).” Nozick conceptualises these rights as “selfownership.” Self ownership is defined as the ownership of an individual’s physical body, talents and labor (Nozick, 16971). Nozick creates a Lockean argument by stating that if we
The issue of global wealth redistribution has become an increasingly fundamental topic in our globalized world. The vast amount of literature on this topic has left philosophers and economists to seek questions on whether there is a duty to redistribute wealth and in what way it should be distributed globally. The uncertainty over this remains a key impediment to real life progress. Nevertheless, the crucial aspect of this debate is to understand whether individuals have an obligation to redistribute wealth internationally. There are many deep controversial issues that conflict with the justness of responsibility. However in this paper, I will be using a cosmopolitan outlook by opening up the discussion of the current global situation and what duty an individual in the developed states has to redistribute globally. I will also analyze the poverty in the third world, and assess whether distributing wealth is the most effective mechanism compared to other alternatives.
Rawls begins his work by defining the role of the principles of justice “to specify the fair terms of social cooperation. These principles specify the basic rights and duties to be assigned by the main political and social institutions, and they regulate the division of benefits arising from social cooperation and allot the burdens necessary to sustain it.” (7) Through these fair principles of justice, Rawls aims to build a realistic utopia. The two principles of justice he spells out in his work are: “Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all; and
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.
Nozick agrees with the liberty principle proposed by Rawls, but he disagrees with the equality principle and the fashion in which resources are distributed. I believe the historical principle of distribution is one strength of Nozick’s ideas. The historical principle of distribution states that the justice of any distribution does not depend on how closely it resembles any form of an equality pattern but how the distribution came about (959). I also agree with the theory that people are entitled to anything they acquired voluntarily and anything that is transferred to them voluntarily (958). Nozick does not agree with redistribution of wealth because taking resources from one person to benefit others is not necessarily voluntary. The biggest weaknesses of Nozick’s idea of equality comes from the idea that taxation and federally funded programs would be unjust forcing everything to be owned privately. This creates the most issues because people are self-interested and the virtue of market may not create the balance which Nozick proposed. Public school systems and public roads being deemed illegitimate would create issues with access. Also, making taxation illegal would make it difficult to have services like a police force, fire department, court system, or penal system because they would have to be paid by the individual directly. The police and court systems could become corrupt
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...
It is also believed that wealth should be non-existent. This is only possible if cl...
With the issue of income inequality becoming more salient in present day politics, it has been argued that the United States is doing little to ensure equality of opportunity. Many economists today point to low levels of intergenerational social and economic mobility as evidence of these trends. Philosopher John Rawls’ second principle of justice states that inequalities can exist in society as long as they improve the general wellbeing of the least well off members of society. However, current inequalities in income and opportunities in the United States have been said to violate Rawls second principle of justice, because of their inability to provide the least well off members of society with an improvement in wellbeing. In this paper, I will delineate the argument underlying Rawls second principle, as well as its background, conditions and requirements and justify why Rawls would be correct to assume that current inequalities in income and opportunity in the United States are unjust in regards to the wellbeing of citizens.
Rawls’ primary goal in designing the original position is to describe a situation that he believes would achieve the most extensive liberty and fairness possible to all the parties involved in his hypothetical social contract (Rawls, 1971). Rawls believes that in order to achieve this level of fairness, it must be assumed that the parties involved are situated behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ (Rawls, 1971). This veil of ignorance deprives all of the parties of all knowledge of arbitrary facts about themselves, about other citizens, from influencing the agreement among the representatives (Rawls, 1971). For example, “no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like.” (Rawls, 1971, 137) Rawls argues that if rational people found themselves in this position, they would al...
Robert D. Kaplan’s article “The Coming Anarchy," is best summarized by the following quote, which identifies the different factors that he evaluates throughout his article, “To understand the events of the next fifty years, then, one must understand environmental scarcity, cultural and racial clash, geographic destiny, and the transformation of war.” (Kaplan, 1994) This is the framework that he uses to make his supporting arguments and thus this summary will be broken down into these four main parts.
Utopia as a text is a clear reflection and representation of More’s passion for ideas and art. Through the character of Raphael, More projects and presents his ideas, concepts and beliefs of politics and society. More’s Utopia aims to create a statement on the operations and effectiveness of the society of England. This text is a general reflection of More’s idea of a perfectly balanced and harmonious society. His ideas and concepts of society somewhat contrast to the rest of 16th century England and indicate a mind that was far ahead of its time. A number of issues and themes are raised throughout the text to which More provides varying views and opinions. These are transmitted and projected through the perspectives of the fictional Raphael, More and Giles.