John Rawls Social Justice Essay

1273 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Essay on rawls theory of justice

the other hand, there are also criteria that we believe are not justifiable grounds for giving people different treatment. In the world of work, for example, we generally hold that it is unjust to give individuals special treatment on the basis of age, sex, race, or their religious preferences. If the judge's nephew receives a suspended sentence for armed robbery when another offender unrelated to the judge goes to jail for the same crime, or the brother of the Director of Public Works gets the million dollar contract to install sprinklers on the municipal golf course despite lower bids from other contractors, we say that it's unfair. We also believe it isn't fair when a person is punished for something over which he or she had no control, …show more content…

As the ethicist John Rawls has pointed out, the stability of a society—or any group, for that matter—depends upon the extent to which the members of that society feel that they are being treated justly. When some of society's members come to feel that they are subject to unequal treatment, the foundations have been laid for social unrest, disturbances, and strife. The members of a community, Rawls holds, depend on each other, and they will retain their social unity only to the extent that their institutions are just. Moreover, as the philosopher Immanuel Kant and others have pointed out, human beings are all equal in this respect: they all have the same dignity, and in virtue of this dignity they deserve to be treated as equals. Whenever individuals are treated unequally on the basis of characteristics that are arbitrary and irrelevant, their fundamental human dignity is …show more content…

In evaluating any moral decision, we must ask whether our actions treat all persons equally. If not, we must determine whether the difference in treatment is justified: are the criteria we are using relevant to the situation at hand? But justice is not the only principle to consider in making ethical decisions. Sometimes principles of justice may need to be overridden in favor of other kinds of moral claims such as rights or society's welfare. Nevertheless, justice is an expression of our mutual recognition of each other's basic dignity, and an acknowledgement that if we are to live together in an interdependent community we must treat each other as equals.
The views expressed do not necessarily represent the position of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. We welcome your comments, suggestions, or alternative points of

Show More
Related

  • The Category of Factor X

    1382 Words  | 3 Pages

    Malcolm X, an African American Muslim minster and human rights activist, once said “We declare our right on this earth to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.” According to Malcolm X, everyone on the earth has a right to be called a human being and fit into the category of a human being; no matter if they are young, old, disabled or incompetent. Yet if we were to look back on our past and cannot seem to count how many times these so called human beings have treated others who share the same characteristics of human beings as lesser creatures. It becomes as if in order to have some form of equality, there must always be one group of people that is treated as inferior. According to Francis Fukuyama, author of “Human Dignity”, if we were to live by his idea of Factor X, the world would be a more equal place.

    Read More

  • Rawls Theory Of Justice

    3346 Words  | 7 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Kantian Perspective: Fairness And Justice Immanuel Kant Case Analysis

    1820 Words  | 4 Pages

    Equity means giving every individual what he or she merits or, in more conventional terms, giving every individual his or her due. Equity and reasonableness are nearly related terms that are frequently today utilized conversely. There have, be that as it may, additionally been more unmistakable understandings of the two terms. While equity normally has been utilized with reference to a standard of rightness, decency frequently has been utilized as to a capacity to judge without reference to one 's emotions or intrigues; reasonableness has additionally been utilized to allude to the capacity to make judgments that are not excessively general but rather that are concrete and particular to a specific case. Regardless, an idea of desert is significant to both equity and decency. Case in point, are requesting what they think they merit when they are requesting that they be treated with equity and decency. At the point when individuals contrast over what they accept ought to be given, or when choices must be

    Read More

  • Theory Of Justice In John Rawls's Theory Of Justice

    2303 Words  | 5 Pages

    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,

    Read More

  • Michael Sandel Reflection

    1520 Words  | 4 Pages

    Justice plays a valuable part in the public’s life; no matter who you are or where you are from. In Michael Sandel’s Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? the reader encounters six specific approaches to lawfulness and ethical morality, which constitute of utilitarianism, libertarianism, Locke, Kant, Rawls, and Aristotle. Each of these definitive philosophies falls under one of three general concepts and categories. These consist of freedom, virtue, and welfare. Exclusively judging the title of the book, one may think that it attempts to solve or bring forth ethical and moral issues of our time. After reading the book however, the reader becomes aware that Sandel’s work is much

    Read More

  • Totalitarianism Hannah Ardent Summary

    1252 Words  | 3 Pages

    Philosopher John Rawls is known for his justice theory, he upholds “justice is the first virtue of social institutions.” Rawls concept of “justice as fairness” conveys the idea that the principles of justice are agreed to in an initial situation that is fair. Rawls claims to secure justice as fairness, we must enter a social contract with others where we all imagine ourselves in the “original position” which is an impartial point of view that will lead one to commit oneself to fair principles of social and political justice. Rawls predicates our political theory should come from none other than a “veil of ignorance” which we are under in the original position as that is our only way to be truly fair in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice. With futures shrouded by a veil of ignorance, we wouldn’t know our class, social position, assets, and abilities.

    Read More

  • The Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance

    1361 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice

    959 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice holds that a rational, mutually disinterested individual in the Original Position and given the task of establishing societal rules to maximise their own happiness throughout life, is liable to choose as their principles of justice a) guaranteed fundamental liberties and b) the nullification of social and economic disparities by universal equality of opportunities, which are to be of greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society,. Rawls’ system of societal creation has both strengths and weaknesses, but is ultimately sound. One strength is the inherent compulsion to look after the interests of the entire society through the Veil of Ignorance. One is unable to look after the interests of a single particular ethnic, political or social grouping because of uncertainty regarding which groups they will belong to within society, so they grant all individuals “freedom of thought, [religion], personal and political liberties”. This establishes a precedent of equality for all and ensures a fair standard of living.

    Read More

  • Justice and Virtue in John Rawls' A Theory of Justice

    538 Words  | 2 Pages

    There is a natural instinct in humans to have a justified reason for everything they do, even if they are not aware of it. It is the product of psychological reasoning. Everybody wants to be treated the same. Justice covers a broad area covered mostly by equality. “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others.” (Rawls 60). That quote was the first principle of justice from John Rawls A Theory of Justice. Equality is important to society because it maintains everyone getting the same as anyone of any other racial, ethical, or wealth status. The definition of what is just and fair differs greatly because of the views and opinions of everyone.

    Read More

  • Justice As Fairness: Political Not Metaphysical Analysis

    1635 Words  | 4 Pages

    In a journal article titled “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical” written by John Rawls, Rawls discusses the concept of “justice as fairness.” Rawls argues that “justice as fairness is intended as a political conception of justice” (Rawls 1985, 224). However, Rawls notes that while justice as fairness is a moral conception, in this context, justice as fairness is framed to apply the “basic structure of modern constitutional democracy” including society’s “main political, social and economic institutions (Rawls 1985, 224). In his own words, Rawls says that the purpose of his article is “to show how a conception of justice with the structure and content of justice as fairness can be understood as political and not metaphysical, and

    Read More

  • Rawls Justice Is Fairness

    1008 Words  | 3 Pages

    & nbsp;                                       Take Home Exam # 1: Essay-2 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 scenario on two principles of justice. His first principle of justice was that everyone should have the same rights as others.

    Read More

  • Difference Between Justice And Morality

    1176 Words  | 3 Pages

    The issue of justice and how it coexists with morality have always been a pertinent topic for discussions and arguments. Often moral actions are considered to be just, and just actions to be moral. It would be reasonable to assume that justice and morality don’t operate independently, and they significantly overlap, although they can come into conflict sometimes. Justice has emphasis on the effects of certain actions and the weight of these effects. Morality, on other hand, is more about the actions, the rightness or wrongness of it based on cultural and societal context in where the morality exists. Principles of justice work primarily with what has happened, as the consequence of an action, while morality often relies on predicting the future, as a preventer of an action; it is concerned with conforming to the code of principles. Despite the differences in these concepts, justice and morality both exist to pursuit the least pain and the greatest pleasure for everyone. Justice and morality are not mutually

    Read More

  • Defining Adventure Education

    1134 Words  | 3 Pages

    Some decisions we make, and the resulting actions we could take, have a higher moral value than others. Rather than teaching a particular set of values, we would be better serving our participants if we helped them understand the process of making reasonable moral decisions . . . We may not all agree on the philosophic orientation used to determine just and unjust acts, but we should agree that some system will probably be better than...

    Read More

  • Impartiality Essay

    1766 Words  | 4 Pages

    To summarise, this essay has shown that the concept of impartiality is a relationship between a moral agent and a particular group. It requires that one be not influenced by which member of the group is benefited or harmed by his or her actions. Moreover, it has also shown that impartiality is a necessary condition for the ethical theories of utilitarianism and deontology. Such theories, however, cannot account for human intuition that suggests that it is acceptable to be partial in some circumstances. Finally, this essay has shown that the conflict between partiality and impartiality has not been resolved. As such, the request to be impartial with regard to morality does demand too much.

    Read More

  • John Rawls And Robert Nozick And Entitlement Theory

    1084 Words  | 3 Pages

    Attempting to address wealth inequality while not ruining the efficiency of the market is no simple task to undertake. John Rawls and Robert Nozick attempt to address this issue by providing differing perspectives on the dilemma of distributive justice. While Rawls argues in favour of a form of Social Contractionalism wherein individuals are asked to assume a position of ignorance when establishing societal minimums of justice, Nozick argues in favour of his Entitlement Theory where justice is found through whether or not an individual is entitled to his/her possessions. Though both arguments have merit, Rawls’ argument proves to be more formidable and better suited to solve the issues of wealth inequality without ruining market efficiency.

    Read More

More about John Rawls Social Justice Essay

Open Document