Differences And Similarities Between Marx And Rawls

1499 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Marx's contribution to sociology

Zach Altland PHI 330 Cash 15 April 2014 Just Society A just society must secure basic liberties and freedoms and also protect its citizens from exploitation. To understand what this means from a general perspective, one must define each of the terms within the aforementioned statement. However, each of these terms can have a slightly different connotation (depending upon the context it is used). Marx and Rawls have similar, yet different, views on the issues attached to these words. I believe that what Marx means by “just” can be interpreted as a society free from exploited workers. What is freedom to Marx? Freedom is the right and ability of the populace to settle on their choices, in a society that is able to contribute to the complete …show more content…

He uses the tool of a theoretical union, created upon the pretense of an environment of egalitarianism and impartiality so there are no discrepancies in negotiating control. This validates the coercive utilization of political authority because a society would acquire a structure in which all citizens would (among a landscape of liberty) agree to. The two theories I have presented would more than likely benefit the majority of humanity if they were put into place in the correct fashion. There are some striking similarities between Marx and Rawls—I believe that the differences lie in the details and the execution of the laws, regulations, and general theories they propose. Each of them were concerned about the query of what characteristics a just society ought to have, both proposed ideas regarding the best version of humanity, and both believed that the good things in society rely on collective …show more content…

The ideas that the two conjured up can very well be attributed to the economic landscape of the times in which they existed in. If the two had lived in opposing times, perhaps their ideologies would have a different tone. Regardless, I must side with Rawls on the issue of a just society. I do believe that Marx’s ideas were fundamental to the development of an egalitarian view of political power and that his views on the exploitation of the worker did a lot to advance humanity as a whole. However, the application of the theories of Rawls in today’s society just seems to make much more sense to me. Rawls envisions a just society as one in which persons are afforded the largest amount of liberty, assuming that liberty does not interfere with the freedom of other persons. He asserts that economic inequality is only warranted if it is in the interest of the underprivileged constituents of society. These ideas are the central foundation that liberalism is based on. Republicans (in the contemporary sense) would more than likely oppose his ideas, while Democrats would more than likely embrace them. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be a more logical and rational system than that of

Show More
Related

  • John Rawls and the Social Contract

    3640 Words  | 8 Pages

    Petit, Philip, and Chandran Kukathas. Rawls: A Theory of Justice and its Critics . Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1990.

    Read More

  • Comparison Between Rousseau And Constant's Views On Freedom

    1264 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rawls’ thinks that the modern liberty is the kind of freedom modern individuals are able to enjoy. He states that there are two things that are appropriate to democratic society, and they are justice and tolerance. Rawls presents us with two principles of justice that the citizens have to follow in order to be truly free; they are equality of rights and inequality benefits least advantaged member of society. In order to be completely free and exist in the society all you need to do is follow these two basic and most important rule. Furthermore, Rawls mentions that there is so much diversity in our democratic society, that we are more of society of strangers. You are free to do whatever you please and free to take responsibility for yourself, you are your own validation. With that he also brought out, since the institutions follow the two principles of justice, citizens can put their trust in them. In Rawls sense, as long as we follow the two principles of justice then, citizens are completely free to do whatever they wish to

    Read More

  • Justice In John Rawls's Theory Of Justice

    1229 Words  | 3 Pages

    In John Rawls’ “Theory of Justice,” he describes important aspects of justice that are often times overlooked when trying to contain the controversy of justice. The main contribution that Rawls has to offer for equality and justice is his two principles of justice. The two principles of justice apply to the basic structure of society and govern rights and duties and attempt to help regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages. The first principle says that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. This first principle has the ability to make the basic liberties of Americans equal, due to its emphasize on the topic of equality

    Read More

  • Economic Freedom is the Heart of Capitalism

    1578 Words  | 4 Pages

    At the heart of any capitalist structure is the fundamental belief of economic freedom. This liberty focuses on two areas that are critical in order for any economy to survive and prosper. This economic theory refers to an individual’s freedom of choice and enterprise. By definition, freedom of choice refers to any person who is free to make his or her own economic decisions in a world of limited resources. This comprises various actors’, (consumers, savers, buyers, and producers) to behave in a purely voluntary manner. Freedom of enterprise on the other hand is a system in which governments place few restrictions on business activities and ownership. In this sense, businesses would be limited by competition and the forces of supply and demand in the marketplace. These two characteristics of economic freedom are the basics of constructing a capitalist system that promotes growth and a robust middle-class.

    Read More

  • Marxist Critique of Democracy

    576 Words  | 2 Pages

    Marx believed that humans have the want to be in a collective embroidered into their natural instincts. The Marxist thinkers also stated that capitalism needs and requires for the individual to battle other individuals. This leads to constant completion and does allow for a person to flourish in life. It is easy to agree with Marx on this issue. From an early age an American is brought up to believe in business and to do almost anything to make a dollar. We listen to stories of how hard our elders had to work to make end...

    Read More

  • Differentiating Marx and Rousseau

    2202 Words  | 5 Pages

    Despite their different approaches, both theories conclude in universal equality, a real equality between humans that has never before been observed in any lasting civilization. While both theories operate on reason and seem to be sound, they remain unproven due to their contingency on various factors of time and place, but mainly on their prerequisite of incorruptibility. Now, while both theories may very well have the odds dramatically stacked against their favor, I believe they must be thoroughly dissected for their content before attempting to condemn them to utopianism. In his Manifesto of the Communist Party Karl Marx created a radical theory revolving not around the man-made institution of government itself, but around the ever present guiding vice of man that is materialism and the economic classes that stemmed from it. By unfolding the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, Marx is able to outline a repeating variable....

    Read More

  • Critically Assess the Pluralist and Marxist Views of the State

    1554 Words  | 4 Pages

    Marxism tends to focus more on the rights of the working class as opposed to all of society in the way that pluralism does. After all, the ideas and theories of Karl Marx are most commonly interpreted as a critique of capitalism where the mi...

    Read More

  • Module 7 Assignment Paper

    609 Words  | 2 Pages

    The views of justice of John Rawls share a lot in common with Karl Marx's philosophical theories. First off, Rawls rejects the utilitarian viewpoint when it comes to justice. While utilitarianism would see justice as what is for the general good of society, Rawls would see justice as what is for the general good of everyone equally. Rawls' view of justice also stems from his equal liberty principle, which suggests that every human should be entitle to equal liberties in a just society. Without this principle, in Rawls' eyes no society can be considered just. Henceforth Rawls' placed a large burden on the shoulders of the state when it comes to ensuring these equal liberties for individuals. Rawls also would see the redistribution of wealth as fair.

    Read More

  • Argument Repair John Rawls

    1252 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this essay I will endeavor to explain what John Rawls' central argument in his article, Justice as Fairness is as I understand it, explain what I believe to be the strongest objection or flaw to this argument, and finally attempt to reasonably alter Rawls' initial argument to silence this objection.

    Read More

  • Rawls Justice Is Fairness

    1008 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Rawls never claimed to know the only way to start a society, but he did suggest a very sound and fair way to do so. He based his just scenario on two principles of justice. His first principle of justice was that everyone should have the same rights as others. His following policy decision was that in the event of any inequalities, they should be to the benefit to everybody, and available to all people in the society. This original Rawl’s approach to justice has been highly revered by philosophers to this day. This is mostly because Rawl’s has thought up one of the fairest Utopia since the days of Socrates. This is not an easy of a task as it sounds. Though when analyzed by even the most naïve philosophers, it seems that Rawl’s scenario base of principles are pretty obvious and simple. Maybe because some of these same principles can be found in present day society. The United States tries to pride itself in maintaining these two principles at all costs. In some countries even regarding these principles as fair can cause you to go away for a very long time. The most commonly known to the term “political prisoner” is Gedhun Choekyi

    Read More

  • Ideal Society Essay

    974 Words  | 2 Pages

    The perfect societies have been crumbled by the simplest of thing such as people, beliefs, and customs. There has never been as a society that has been able to sustain its self and not had to back up on in way or change their customs because of a foreign power or conquest. But in the ideal society where the leaders care and have the best interest of the country itself. I could see where the society could be better. But there is always a struggle for power or land. There has always been this fight going on through the ages. Just look at Julius Caesar, he was killed for his power as well as someone having different ideas for the city of Athens. This is why there is and cannot be a perfect or ideal society.

    Read More

  • How Does John Rawl Create A Fair System

    912 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Rawl believes in a fair system that gives each person an equal opportunity to achieve his/her plan of life. He does not believe in a system that is rigged and favors only a certain group of individuals in society. He developed two principles for constructing a just system. The first principle states that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. Principle two states that social and economic inequalities are to satisfy and benefit the least advantaged members of society.

    Read More

  • Sizeism: The Theory Of Justice System

    429 Words  | 1 Pages

    Basically, Rawls’ theory through the original position suggests that when people are asked to choose between principles, they would decide based off the circumstances of choice not based off how someone looks or fits into society’s box of expectations. On page 33, Lebacqz explains that the original position pushes the parties to choose fairly based off the circumstances with no bias. On page 34, Lebacqz exclaims that the parties that fall under the veil of ignorance choose principals even though they lack certain knowledge and could come off as impartial/unfair. If we apply this theory to our society, our society has conditioned us to fall under the veil of ignorance by creating a hierarchy and separating people into two categories “them” and

    Read More

  • Rawls Veil Of Ignorance Analysis

    1616 Words  | 4 Pages

    For example, it is simply not rational to accept less social goods without any recompense (62). However, there are also other assumptions that are less implicit - for example, that individuals care about the well-being of some in the next generation. Perhaps Rawls would argue that this is implicit however - if injustice comes from inequalities that don’t benefit all, then future generations of humans would be included in the all. It would seem that if the next generation weren’t taken into account, that it would be just to arrange social institutions to benefit the elderly at the expense of the next generations. This brings me to a comment on Rawls’ theory - it is arranged in such a way that if there is injustice; there isn’t. What I mean to say is that the very idea of Rawls system is that it preserves fairness in the same way a deductive argument preserves the truth of it’s conclusion. Fair principles and a fair procedure guarantee a fair outcome. I am wary of this, because it prevents certain counter-schemes of argument being used. Since the pragmatics of Rawls argument are so tenuous anything shown to be practically unfair is going to be an unreal outcome for Rawls theory. What I mean to say is, it seems to be so basically logical that fairness can be preserved in the way that Rawls says it can be, that to argue otherwise seems

    Read More

  • Stuart Mills Utilitarianism

    1187 Words  | 3 Pages

    He considers the differences among individuals these differences should be taken into consideration. He assumes the principles of justice can hypothetically can derive from a social contract. This contract is between all the members of society who are invested into the welfare of the society as a whole (Sandels video). Rawls was convinced people would act honorably as long as their liberty was not at risk. He considered in order to be a just society, we need to give everyone an equal access and start with the original position, where social status, race or any other advantages or disadvantages were not taken into account. He called this the “veil of ignorance.” The reason behind the veil of ignorance, is a pretended cover that prevents humans from making decisions to benefit themselves. Through the veil, we are not aware what social status we will have; therefore the way we can shape our laws and the society we will be in should not affect the way we determine our course. Since we don’t know if we will be part of a majority or minority group, we decide on laws that should de impartial to everyone, not just a determined group (Gray). Utilitarian theory does not take into account the distinction between person. With the veil of ignorance, that is taken care

    Read More

More about Differences And Similarities Between Marx And Rawls

Open Document