More handpicked essays just for you.
Racial discrimination in justice system essay
Racial discrimination in the justice system thesis
Racial bias in the justice system essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 remove 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 difference principle and not an attempt at a neutral analysis. I have read the Theory of Justice and I have found it wanting in both scope and realism. The difference principle proposed by Rawls, his second principle is the focus of my critique. While this paper will not focus solely on the second principle, all analysis done within this essay are all targeted towards the scope of influence that Rawls treats the second principle with.
Why is it that a person has to offset his initial gain for the betterment of others? Rawls proposes this idea as the criterion for his second principle, the difference principle. What I argue however, is that the difference principle proposes to remove inequality from society but fails in this endeavor due to retaining enough inequality to benefit the disadvantaged, leaving the principle defective in its nature. This will be the question analyzed in this essay where I will first explain the two principles proposed by Rawls as well as the lexical order or priority, which is a central feature within A Theory of Justice. I...
... middle of paper ...
...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.
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.
As a result, I am convinced by both philosophers that Justice is needed to protect our properties and possession. Without justice, mankind would become uncontrollable, so working to attain possessions would be in vain for most people. People would steal from each other because they are aware that mankind had laws, no restriction, and no consequence for their action. Furthermore, everybody would try to become superior compared to another. Mankind would have no morality and instead of peace, one’s own self-interest would become
“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?”
Roemer, John E. (1996), ‘Equality of Welfare versus Equality of Resources’ in Theories of Distributive Justice, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 236-261.
John Rawls was more in agreement with the works of Locke and Rousseau; however, Rawls disagreed with the notion that the State of Nature was a historical situation as opposed to something hypothetical; Rawls instead believed an original position of equality which I agree with (917). Rawls believed humans to be free, rational, self-interested, and most importantly, equal.
The general concept of Rawls “original position” is that all social “Primary Good” should be distributed equally to individuals in a society, unless an unequal distribution favors those less fortunate. Rawls call “the situation of ignorance about your own place in society the “original position (242).” Rawls’ theory is in direct response to John Lock’s principles on social contract which states that people in a free society need to set rules on how to live with one another in peace. Rawls’ principles were designed to guards against injustices, which was inflicted upon society, with the help of John Stuart Mills Utilitarianism principle that individuals should act so as to maximize the greatest good for the greatest number. Mills principle justified Nazi Germany's mistreatment of the Jews and the United States' mistreatment of African- Americans. Rawls’ argues that a person’s good is that which is needed for the successful execution of a rational long-term goal of life given reasonably favorable circumstances. He described the definition of good as the satisfaction of rational desires and identifies goods as liberty, opportunity, income, wealth and self-respect.
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
(4) In correspondence and in "A Puzzle About Economic Justice In Rawls' Theory," Social Theory and Practice, vol. 4 #1, pp. 1-27.
The social contract theory of John Rawls challenges utilitarianism by pointing out the impracticality of the theory. Mainly, in a society of utilitarians, a citizens rights could be completely ignored if injustice to this one citizen would benefit the rest of society. Rawls believes that a social contract theory, similar those proposed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, would be a more logical solution to the question of fairness in any government. Social contract theory in general and including the views of Rawls, is such that in a situation where a society is established of people who are self interested, rational, and equal, the rules of justice are established by what is mutually acceptable and agreed upon by all the people therein. This scenario of negotiating the laws of that society that will be commonly agreed upon and beneficial to all is what Rawls terms "The Original Position and Justification".
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
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.
In the first principle john Rawls proposes that the government should make sure that the every citizen or individual enjoys equal opportunities in every aspect of life, such as freedom of speech, freedom to vote and other essential rights and liberties (Lamont & Favor, 2014). The second principle has two parts. The first part states that if there is going to be any form of inequality it should be to the benefit of the less privileged or the disadvantaged in the society. The second part suggests that the government set up certain constitutional institutions to ensure that people enjoy this liberties accordingly. The difference principle which is the second principle means that the state may give other individuals more power and influence than other individuals provided certain conditions are met such as promoting people in official positions without any form of partiality. This implies that raising the standard of living of the advantaged in the society will automatically result in raising the standard of living of the poor in the society (Garrett, 2002). Robert Nozick is one well known thinker who has criticised Rawls’ difference principle, he contends that Rawls overlooks the difference in individuals when he said natural talents of privileged or advantaged individuals should
Rawl’s principles were found justified by visualizing real people forming a system of laws including the ramifications of a “justified complaint”. A justified complaint is an accusation by a member of society against another member of society. To have a system of justice the society must have means of answering the beckoning of the populace. If a society does not attend to the offense of its own people then it is not a true society. Society is based on the principle of a consensus unanimously choosing their governing rules and laws. However the limitations of a “justified complaint” are unclear depending on what the consensus agrees to. Though the one rule that must apply is the fact that a complaint must be made by a law abider to be a “justified complaint”.
This idea allows for justice to be measured by an equation, each person’s share of something must be justified by some relevant difference, making the equation equal. Each person should receive exactly what is proportional to what they put in. If you work an hour longer than someone then you should receive pay for one more hour. This is equal because you are being compensated exactly for the work you put in and the other person is not shorted in any way because they did not work that extra hour therefore should not receive the extra pay. This theory allows for impartiality when making a decision, it is not based on justice because of your moral character or consequence of your action it is based on equal justice for all based