John Rawls's Theory Of Equality And Inequality In The Social Values

1044 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Rawls' idea of distributive justice

In regards to the social values of society, justice as a fairness can be comprehended differently for each person. Philosophical writer, John Rawls, makes a proposal of justice and injustice in the form of equality and inequality within social institutions. Rawls examines equality and inequality and the role of justice. Justice within liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect. Justice as a fairness, and the conceptual tool of the “veil of ignorance” is used by Rawls to develop a theory of justice in equality and inequality. There is much to be learned by Rawl’s writhings of social justice, so within this text, I will provide a reconstructive and exegetical analysis in regards to Rawls ideas of justice and the veil of …show more content…

The veil of ignorance is an assumption that no one knows their place in society, or has an awareness of their social class. This veil makes it so that each person believes that they are benefiting from every outcome, just like everyone around them. This ignorance, or belief in equality, makes it so everyone receives an advantage from this situation, leading to a greater good for them making the situation justified. For example, if two people are working for income, person A receives 20 dollars an hour, and person B receives 40 dollars an hour, it’s obvious that person B is receiving more money, which represents an inequality. But if both people are ignorant to each other’s wages, person A does not know the salary of person B, and vice versa, and each person lives a happy and satisfied life, then this situation is justified because each person is receiving the pleasure of happiness and satisfaction, concluding with a benefit for both. Rawls makes the veil of ignorance to mold his principles of justice in the concept that equality does not always mean justice, but rather, justice is justice when every person benefits through the

Show More
Related

  • Social Inequality In Charles Johnson's Exchange Value

    394 Words  | 1 Pages

    Charles Johnson, in his philosophical fable “Exchange Value” traces the cause of social inequality by illustrating two African American brothers, Cooter and Loftis’ fateful tragedy. Influenced by James Coleman, Jonathan Little, and Asraf Rushdy’s previous work, Linda Ferguson Selzer draws Karl Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism in her analysis of Johnson’s short story. In “Charles Johnson’s ‘Exchange Value’: Signifying on Marx” (2001), Selzer explains that under capitalism, the society praises the “exchange value” of an object over its “use value”, thus compelling one to prioritize his pursuit of objects at the expense of freedom, morality, or even life (Marx 126). Likewise, in Lauren Berlant’s “Cruel Optimism”, the brothers become excessively obsessed with the “promises” of wealth, so that instead of spending the money for the betterment of life, they “hoard against death” (Berlant 41).

    Read More

  • Inequality In The Communist Manifesto By Karl Marx

    430 Words  | 1 Pages

    The fundamental contradiction of Liberalism is that it produces inequality. In order to guarantee individual rights, in fact, a liberal government cannot force its citizens to promote equality. Furthermore, in a capitalist economy there is an incentive to produce on a mass scale, and the best way to increase productivity is to reduce the cost of labor; by reducing the cost of labor, the owners of the factories become richer, while the actual workers earn less money than they ought to. According to Karl Marx, this is the main problem of Liberalism: it somehow legalized inequality among people. So, in The Communist Manifesto, Marx explains why a total revolution of the society is inevitably going to happen.

    Read More

  • John Rawls and the Social Contract

    3640 Words  | 8 Pages

    ABSTRACT. Adapting the traditional social contract approach of earlier years to a more contemporary use, John Rawls initiated an unparaleled revitalization of social philosophy. Instead of arguing for the justification of civil authority or the form that it should take, Professor Rawls is more interested in the principles that actuate basic social institutions —he presupposes authority and instead focuses on its animation. In short, Rawls argues that “justice as fairness” should be that basic animating principle.

    Read More

  • Locke, Rousseau, and King

    929 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Accommodating Pluralism: Liberal Neutrality and Compulsory Education

    3389 Words  | 7 Pages

    Here one might think Rawls has missed the point. For what is problematic about his liberalism, it might be argued, is that it will prove non-neutral in its effects on doctrines and ways of life permissible on its own account of political justice. But Rawls has not missed the point. Rawls’s liberalism does not rest on a commitment to the value of, nor does it require, a social world maximally diverse with respect to comprehensive doctrines or ways of life willing more or less to accept liberal principles of political justice. Of course, Rawls’s liberalism would be in serious trouble were it to lead to a social world only weakly diverse. But so long as Rawls’s liberalism permits a healthy degree of diversity, to claim that its non-neutral effect on some comprehensive doctrine or way of life is unfair is to presuppose rather than establish the correctness of some competing conception of justice.

    Read More

  • John Rawls On Justice Analysis

    1184 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the aforementioned passage from her document “John Rawls on Justice” Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz’s sheds light on the major flaw in John’s Rawls’s “social contract theory” for establishing “Justice” in our society. She asserts

    Read More

  • Rawls Principles Of Justice Essay

    1396 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...gations that the individuals in the society have towards each other. Rawls indicates that there are public institutions that are present in a just and fair society. He considers the following types of systems that include Laissez-faire capitalism, welfare-state capitalism, property-owning democracy and liberal democratic socialism. Although he indicates that only property owning, democracy and liberal socialism are the ideal systems that satisfy the principles of justice. With reference to the twentieth century, Rawls says that institutions within the United States society play a major role in causing injustices. For example, the extremely expensive campaign systems alienate every individual who is not very rich from running for public office. In addition, the expensive health care policy issue restricts the best care to those who can only afford it. (Rawls, 2001).

    Read More

  • Rawls Theory Of Justice

    3346 Words  | 7 Pages

    ...s that mean Rawls will account for skin color as a primary good? It could be argued that the benefits received and enjoyed by those white peoples are due to their lack of color and thus, color would then become a standardized form of primary good. But accounting the color of one’s skin as a natural asset them presumes that the worst off in society are always colored while the elite are always white peoples. While this is a vast generalization of the concept, it holds true as the principle seeks to subvert those who use natural talents to succeed. The color of one’s skin is both a natural talent and one that can be exploited for maximum gain. But it does not factor in the reality that shifts in the social sphere can make that advantage into a burden. Furthermore, there is a significant generalization of labelling the success of individuals based on skin color alone.

    Read More

  • The Philosophies Of John Rawls Vs. Nozick

    792 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • John Rawls: “Original Position”

    1126 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    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

  • John Rawls And Utilitarianism

    2028 Words  | 5 Pages

    Rawls states that for this system to work, all citizens must see themselves as being behind a "veil of ignorance". By this he means that all deciding parties in establishing the guidelines of justice (all citizens) must see themselves as equal to everyone paying no mind to there economic situation or anything else that they could keep in mind to negotiate a better situation to those qualities. For example, if everyone in this society has an equal amount of influence toward the establishing of specific laws, a rich man may propose that taxes should be equal for all rather than proportionate to ones assets. It is for this and similar situations that Rawls feels that everyone must become oblivious to themselves. Rawls believes that the foundational guideline agreed upon by the those in the original position will be composed of two parts.

    Read More

  • The Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance

    1361 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    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

  • Distributive Justice By Robert Nozick And John Rawls

    1255 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...e achieved when the Liberty and Difference Principle are enacted with the veil of ignorance. On the contrary, Nozick argues that Rawls’s theory is exactly the sort of patterned principle that infringes upon individual liberty. As an alternative, Nozick provides his unpatterned principle as the ideal distribution of goods in a society. To me, Rawls’s argues his theory in a manner where his principles of justice are not only difficult to achieve, but ultimately are exceedingly deficient in providing general utility. The veil of ignorance has proved to be almost impossible as well as unethical. The Difference Principle in itself is unable to justly distribute property since it clearly violates an individual’s liberty. Since Rawls’s method of distributive justice is rendered unreasonable and inefficient, it leaves us with a clear answer derived from two disjunctions.

    Read More

More about John Rawls's Theory Of Equality And Inequality In The Social Values

Open Document