Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on political liberalism
John rawls equality and justice
John rawls equality and justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on political liberalism
John Rawls and Political Liberalism
Describe in detail the role that the ideas of “overlapping consensus” and “comprehensive doctrine” play in Rawl’s theoretical answer to the fundamental question of Political Liberalism: “How is it possible for there to exist over time a just and stable society of free and equal citizens, who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines?” (Rawls 4). More specifically, how do these concepts help to preserve the traditional liberal values of freedom and equality? And do these concepts help to preserve stability within a pluralistic society?
John Rawls book, Political Liberalism, addresses the need for the reformation of the unjust democratic constitutional regime. According to Rawls, “there is at present no agreement on the way the basic institutions of constitutional democracy should be arranged if they are to satisfy the fair terms of cooperation between citizens regarded as free and equal,” (Rawls 4). In the real world, individuals all follow their own political values or “comprehensive doctrines” that are not in equilibrium with other values. These principles, not being compatible, cause problems in a weak democratic society. Thus, Rawls hopes to create a model for disagreements that could arise within liberalism, in which they could have stronger sense of common ground, or stronger overlapping consensus, which people can make reference. Therefore, Rawls calls for the use of certain theoretical intellectual tools. The first order intellectual tool to guide this reform is the principles of justice. Strong principles of justices will lead to a large “overlapping consensus” and better political values, thus resulting ...
... middle of paper ...
...because that which exists in the original position is fair. Moreover, there is a successful reform, in that a principle of justice (which is a tool of bringing about reform in an unjust democratic constitutional regime) survived the test of the original position.
Thus, the ideas of “overlapping consensus” and “comprehensive doctrines” do in fact play a significant role in his theoretical question: “How is it possible for there to exist over time a just and stable society of free and equal citizens, who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines?” (Rawls 4). Moreover, these concepts help to preserve the traditional liberal values of freedom and equality help to preserve stability within a pluralistic society.
Works Cited
Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.
Tyson Hartnett of The Huffington Post once said “Even with any type of scholarship, college athletes are typically dead broke.” This quote regards a tremendous controversy that has been talked about for the past few years. He talks about whether or not college athletes should be paid for their duties. Despite the fact college athletes are not professionals, they should most certainly be paid for playing for their respective schools due to many factors. These factors include health risks and the income bring in for their colleges as well as to the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
John Dewey and Freidrich Hayek both give compelling accounts of what they view as “free” political association. Hayek gives an account of a state where liberal principles are used and freedom is freedom from the coercion of others; while in contrast Dewey gives an account of a society where both liberal and democratic principles are used and where freedom is much more complex. The difference in the views of Hayek and Dewey on what they perceive to be a free society stems from difference’s they have on liberalism and democracy, freedom, and on the way a “free state” is created. Dewey offers a much more compelling view with his argument that liberalism and democracy cannot be separated, his view of freedom being much more diverse, and his rejection
First, some may ask the question “What is guilt?” Easily enough, guilt is the feeling one has after doing something that has a bad consequence. Guilt can easily push a person into doing actions that they didn't even think they were capable of, causing depression or large amounts of anger and sadness (Guilt). Being...
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
Rawls states that you cannot reimburse for the sufferings of the distressed by enhancing the joys of the successful. Fairness according to him occurs when the society makes sure that every individual is treated equally before the law and given a c...
The article, the idea of public reason revisited, by Thomas Rawls focuses on how a liberal democratic society deals with conflicting views. Thomas Rawls was a professor at Harvard University where he researched the ideal way in which a liberal democracy should operate. In this particular lecture, Rawls looks at how religion makes up citizens of societies comprehensive doctrines. Which really means their core values. My objective here is to suggest that even though Thomas Rawls claims that in a liberal democratic society religious parties do not accept legitimacy due to a mere modus vivendi but that in actuality that is the only reason why they accept its legitimacy. I divide my argument into several parts, first is that Thomas Rawls claims
College athletes should be paid! College athletes are often considered to be some of the luckiest students in the world. Most of them receiving all inclusive scholarships that cover all the costs of their education. They are also in a position to make a reputation for themselves in the sporting world preparing them for the next step. The ongoing debate whether student athletes should be paid has been going on for years. These athletes bring in millions of dollars for their respective schools and receive zero in return. Many will argue that they do receive payment, but in reality it is just not true. Costs associated with getting a college education will be discussed, information pertaining to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and benefits student athletes receive. First, I’ll start with costs associated with college and most of all why student athletes should be paid!
The Hunger Games is not simply a thrilling film that has gained the interest of people both young and old. It is a warning for the people of this nation to stop and examine the world in which they live and the social norms, rituals, and the economic and political system in which they participate. Greed and power have for too long driven and dictated the way in which Americans live their lives. If we are not careful, there is a possibility our society could end up the way that the futuristic society in The Hunger Games ended up. This movie is tale of caution that must be heeded.
In the article “Pay to Play: should college athletes be paid?” the article states, “College athletes should not be forgot their main purpose at school is to learn and study, not receive money” (Birkenes and Akash). One can take from this that athletes should not be paid because they are normal students. College athletes are not making playing sports their only purpose for attending college; they are attending to pursue a more concrete degree that offers financial stability. Birkenes and Akash also write, “Paying college athletes would take money away from college budgets…” If athletes were to be payed then college would lose academic opportunities. The payment of athletes would cause academic cuts for things; such as math and science research. Payment of college athletes will cause a decline in college academics and cause the players to focus less on being a
On the issue of college athletes getting paid, I believe they should. When I mean getting paid I only mean a stipend or weekly check, not thousands or millions. All the hard work and dedication they put into their sport and academics are worthy enough. I have had a chance to play collegiate sports and it takes a lot out of you mentally and physically. The student athletes deserve at least enough money to have a normal student life. $300-$400 a month should give athletes enough money to get the required necessities. All this does is replace the notion of the athlete getting a job for a source of income. This will also help reduce the rate at which athletes accept money, cars, and gifts from boosters. When athletes get caught accepting something from a booster it looks bad on the athlete and the college. So, in my opinion yes college athletes should get paid, there is too much money that the universities have earned floating around going unanswered for the athletes not to get their cut.
In A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents his argument for justice and inequality. Rawls theorizes that in the original position, a hypothetical state where people reason without bias, they would agree to live in a society based on two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 4). These two principles of justice are named the first and second principles. The first is the equal rights and liberties principle. The second is a combination of the difference principle and the fair equality of opportunity principle, or FEOP (Rawls 1971, 53). Rawls argues that inequality will always be inevitable in any society (Rawls 1971, 7). For example, there will always be a varied distribution of social and economic advantages. Some people will be wealthier than others and some will hold places of greater importance in society. Rawls’s argument is that to ensure the stability of society the two principles of justice are needed to govern the assignment of rights and regulate the inequality (Rawls 1971, 53). Any infringement of an individuals rights or inequality outside the parameters of the principles of justice are unjust.
For some Americans the solution is to remove all religious affiliation from the state. Upon analysis of Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s discussion of religious diversity, Maritain’s position on the relation between religion and the secular world, and Hegel’s presupposition about abstract rights, this common question arises. Should the secular world be isolated from the religious dimensions of Human life? With so much religious diversity among groups of people could government politics function without any religious affiliation and still represent the will of the people as a whole.
Religion and science became the sticking points between progressives like Bryan, who believed in majority rule, and the ACLU, whose very adherence to science and experts pushed them to favor individual freedom. While science lost the trial to religion, Larson shows how a fundamental shift to modernism produced the rise of individual rights and the decline of majoritarian democracy.
Dahl conducted his study on the decision making of the Supreme Court and whether the Court exercised its power of judicial review to counter majority will and protect minority rights or if it used the power to ratify the further preferences of the dominant “national law making majority.” From the results of Dahl’s study he builds numerous arguments throughout his article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker”. In what follows, I will thoroughly point out and explain each of the arguments that Dahl constructs in his article.
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.