John Rawls was a man who played an influential role in shaping political thought in the late 20th century. Rawls is accredited for writing two major contributions that has helped influence political ideology of those even today. His first piece was published in 1971, A Theory of Justice, which argues his belief of justice on the domestic level and also that reconciliation between liberty and equality must occur in order to have a just society . Rawls’s belief of what justice should be is extremely controversial, and helped put Rawls on the map. Later, after Rawls gained a reliable reputation he published another piece called, Law of the Peoples, which was his application of justice towards international affairs and what he believes America’s Foreign Policy should emulate. In this I will describe both of his works and then throughout I will offer a brief critique on both A Theory of Justice and Law of the Peoples.
John Rawls divided up his theory into four distinct parts; the first part consisted of his belief of primary goods, next is the formation of principles of justice, third is the institutionalization of society, and finally the last part of his theory is the actual workings within society . The general concept of Rawls’s theory is, “all primary goods must be distributed equally unless the unequal distribution of any of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored” . In order to analyze this correctly Rawls’ terms must be defined; according to Rawls a primary good are “things that every rational man is presumed to want. Goods normally have use regardless of a person’s rational plan to life is” . Some examples of a primary good are: basic rights, opportunity, and income to name a few. With the unders...
... middle of paper ...
... wanting to make every country equally poor try and build up business and education if a country like the United States is going to invest in a third world nation. However, even with these blunders Rawls still became a very well-known political philosopher and impacted many young minds to think like him.
Works Cited
• Buchanan, Allen. John Rawls Theory of Social Justice. Athens: Ohio University
Press, 1980. Print.
• Garcia, Frank J. "Law of the Peoples." Houston Journal of International Law 23:3
(1999): Print.
• Katzner, Louis. John Rawls Theory of Social Justice. Athens: Ohio University
Press, 1980. Print.
• Martin, Rex. Rawls and Rights. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1986.
Print.
• Piccard, Dick. "A theory of Justice." Ohio.edu. Web. 2 Dec. 2011
• Wolff, Robert Paul. Understanding Rawls. Princeton NJ: Princeton University
Press, Print.
Imagine that rational actor X has been charged with the responsibility of developing the guiding principles for a totaly new type of social contract for today’s society. Is there a way for actor X to perform this task in a truly equitable manner? Consider that “with respect to any complex mater of deep human importance there is n o ‘innocent eye’ —no way of seeing the world that is entirely neutral and free of cultural shaping.” 1 As an entrenched member of a particular culture the complete removal of personal biases and prejudices from within the human psyche is not possible; nonetheless, it would of course be necessary to take steps to at least minimize their effects. In his 1971 book, A Theory of Justice , John Rawls suggests that exactly this type of reduction is possible by figuratively stepping behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ int o what he labels the ‘original position’ —this paper is an introduction to the contractarian thinking of John Rawls and its relation to the original position as expressed in his 1971 book, A Theory of Justice.
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
Various neutrality principles have long been associated with liberalism. Today I want to examine the general neutrality principle Rawls associates with his own liberalism.(1) I want to begin by getting clear on just what that principle is. Then I want to test it in the context of compulsory education.
Robert Nozick in the excerpt from his book Anarchy, State and Utopia presents his ideas on why a government in power should not spread the wealth of the state among all of the residents. Nozick writes mainly in response to John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice in which Rawls focuses on the idea of the state working towards improving financially the lives of those that are in the worst conditions. To explain his point of view Nozick expounds on various concepts that provide a better understanding of the procedure that lead to him arriving at the conclusion that he did. This includes the entitlement theory of Nozick. In this paper I will explain how Nozick reaches the conclusion that redistributive justice should not take place along with a detailed look at the various major concepts of his theory. In addition, I will also provide my view on what John Rawls’s argument against Nozick’s theory might be. Finally, I will explain why I agree with John Rawl’s theory and present detailed reasoning.
In “A Theory of Justice” we are confronted with the position of “justice as fairness” and Rawls’s argument toward a more just society where everyone has equal opportunity. However, Rawls has difficulty realizing in his argument that the modern liberal society, to which he is applying his principles are in fashion gender-structured. Rawls has taken this tradition of sexism for granted, and fails to consider how his theory of justice is to apply to women, and the ‘family’. In this essay I will critique John Rawls on gender and the family, I will look at aspects of Rawls’s theory, and the difficulties that arise in regard to gender and family, because of his ambiguous language, and why they must be corrected.
In the Theory of Justice by John Rawls, he defines civil disobedience,” I shall begin by defining civil disobedience as a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”.
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
“The greatest challenge to Rawls’s theory from racial/ethnic minorities could well be his insistence on basing overlapping consensus on the “basic institutions” of U.S. society: appreciations and understandings developed by the dominant group in society, but without taking into consideration oppressed peoples. Liberty, equality, and the common good are indeed important values. However, the issues is, What do they mean in the twenty-first century in a heterogeneous society integrated by others besides Euro-American males?”
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.
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...
Individual liberty is the freedom to act and believe as one pleases. It is a widely controversial issue when it comes to the power of the government policing over individual�s freedoms. In this paper, I am going to compare two well known philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls. In part one, I will explain the political and social positions taken by each philosopher. I will explain how Thomas Hobbes is associated with the �social contract theory,� and how John Rawls� theory of government is a �theory of justice.� In doing so, I will describe their different viewpoints on the government and its power over the people. In Part two, I will describe the differences between Hobbes and Rawls. I will argue that Rawls position on the government is the most reasonable, and I will explain why I believe so. In part three, I will explain my own theory and viewpoint with the example of sex laws, including prostitution. With this example, I will tell how and why I believe individual liberty is important. In part four, I will explain how someone might disagree with my position. I will explain how conservative individuals would argue that the government should regulate sexual activity to protect the greater good of society. Finally, I will conclude with discussing the power of the government and individual liberties in today�s society.
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.
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.
& 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.
Rawls, J. (2007). Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy. United States: Harvard University Press.