Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
John rawl utilitarians
John rawl utilitarians
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: John rawl utilitarians
Sizeism is a social problem that occurs when a person’s body fails to meet society’s ideals and thus are treated unjustly because of their size. A large percentage of the American population is affected by sizeism because there are more people who are considered to be overweight than there are people who are considered to be thinner/ underweight. “According to the Centers for Disease Control, two-thirds of adult Americans are now overweight and half of those qualify as obese” (Fletcher). Sizeism is important because it places worth on each individual person and creates a hierarchy with thin, underweight people on the top and larger or overweight people on the bottom. This form of oppression takes away a persons right for equal treatment while causing negative mental health, self confidence issues, body image negativity, and leaving large people with fewer opportunities within society. John Rawls, a contemporary theorist, is famous for his revival of the Utilitarianism theory which encouraged sacrificing the rights and well-being of other people for the greater good. If the …show more content…
Basically, Rawls’ theory through the original position suggests that when people are asked to choose between principles, they would decide based off the circumstances of choice not based off how someone looks or fits into society’s box of expectations. On page 33, Lebacqz explains that the original position pushes the parties to choose fairly based off the circumstances with no bias. On page 34, Lebacqz exclaims that the parties that fall under the veil of ignorance choose principals even though they lack certain knowledge and could come off as impartial/unfair. If we apply this theory to our society, our society has conditioned us to fall under the veil of ignorance by creating a hierarchy and separating people into two categories “them” and
In “Cruelty, Civility, and Other Weighty Matters” by Ann Marie Paulin, she was trying to get across a very important message: skinny doesn’t mean happy. The main idea was about how our culture in America encourages obesity because of the food choices they offer, how expensive weight loss pills and exercise bikes is, and etc., yet the culture also is prejudice against these same fat people that they encourage. It’s a constant back and forth in America between what is convenient with the little time we have in between everything we have to do each day and working out to be skinny enough for everyone to not judge you. Ms. Paulin wrote this article for literally everyone, this article was for skinny people to show them like hey, you’re not all
“Fat Acceptance”: An Argument Lacking Validity Cynara Geisslers’ essay “Fat Acceptance: A Basic Primer,” was published in Geez Magazine in 2010. The focus of the essay is to refute the pressure of society to be thin and promote self-acceptance regardless of size. While this essay touches on many agreeable points, it tends to blow many ideas out of context in an attempt to create a stronger argument. The article takes on a one-sided argument without any appropriate acknowledgement of the opposition, overlooks the risks of ignoring personal health, and has a strong feminist ideology associated towards the essay which tends to make the validity of her argument questionable.
John Hospers and John Rawls both lived and wrote during the 20th century, mainly discerning about justice and fairness of decisions. Hosper advocated for a self-autonomy where decisions should only affect oneself. Meanwhile, John Rawls believed in giving everyone an equal chance, even if it came at the expense of others. On the issue of college acceptance, the two of them possess very different views. While Hospers would argue that the college acceptance should prioritize those who can afford the education, Rawls, correctly, believes that everyone should be looked at equally regardless of income and background.
This country places great value on achieving the perfect body. Americans strive to achieve thinness, but is that really necessary? In his article written in 1986 entitled “Fat and Happy?,” Hillel Schwartz claims that people who are obese are considered failures in life by fellow Americans. More specifically, he contends that those individuals with a less than perfect physique suffer not only disrespect, but they are also marginalized as a group. Just putting people on a diet to solve a serious weight problem is simply not enough, as they are more than likely to fail. Schwartz wants to convey to his audience that people who are in shape are the ones who make obese people feel horrible about themselves. Schwartz was compelled to write this essay,
The central problem with fat oppression comes from the way in which we as Americans are taught to look at people. Everywhere we look - TV, movies, magazines and so on - thin people are portrayed as glamorous and cool. The encouragement of dieting is terribly prevalent and the dieting market takes in billions of dollars every year. Our society is obsessed with fat and the loss of it.
Interest in the social aspects of obesity is nothing new. Jeffrey Sobal has written extensively about the social and psychological consequences of obesity , including the stigmatisation and discrimination of obese and even overweight individuals (Sobal 2004).
“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?”
According to Rawls, the challenge of justice is to ensure a just distribution of primary goods that include powers and opportunities, rights and liberties, means of self-respect, income and wealth among others (Rawls, 2001). Rawls disputes the earlier predominant common source of injustice, the utilitarianism theory, which states that justice is best defined by that which provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The theory of utilitarianism ignores the moral worth of an individual. This theory does not take into consideration the minority. An example is the mistreatment of the Jews by the Nazi Germans (Rawls, 2001).
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.
In this Golden age of humanity with technology at the fingertips of mankind and world wide global awareness, it's hard to imagine from the comfort of well lit homes, a large population of the human race lives without fresh water and a nourishing daily meal. In the United States of America it has been said of an over abundance of food, though many of the citizens are forced to consume highly processed ready made meals in order to survive due to poverty. These meals are high in fat, sodium and of course, calorie, leaving the consumer with extra weight. This leads to the image of "'merica" with over weight men and women on scooters. While some of this is actually a result of poor self control or a medical issue, many can attribute it to having a very low income and the substance affordable is akin to garage. "Big" a book by some author, chronicles a young women who is very overweight by the design of her home environment. Her mother is disabled, obese and living off the government. She gets a job, goes to fat camp and learns why she can never loose weight. With all of this in mind, not to mention the idolization of stick thin models and actors, its not hard to figure out what the mind of an adolescent will conclude. Weight equals prosperity; being heavy is unsuccessful and ugly, whist-while bones and tight skin stretched over cranium is attractive and desirable. This of course calls Eating disorders to mind; Anorexia nervosa, Blumina, and EDNOS (eating disorder not diagnosed).
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.
Libal, Autumn. "The Poor Get Fat, The Rich Get Thin?" Social Discrimination & Body Size: Too Big to FIt? 2005. 40-55. Print. 10 Nov. 2013.
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,
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".
As a woman of color who has always been a big girl, I started struggling with my body image when I reached my adolescence years. Growing up, I did not realize that my body was abnormal and unacceptable. I saw myself just like other peers and age group. My experience of body dissatisfaction first started within my own family. I got teased about my size by family members. My parents, especially my mother, reminded me constantly about how obese I was. Reaching a certain age, she started controlling my food intake and she made sure I ate no more than three times a day. With all those disciplinary actions from my mother and the pressure I felt from family, I started noticing of external standards of beauty and body image. In this lens, one can see that body image is influenced by many factors and my mother became a structure that carried out directives. This example demonstrates that feminine body is socially constructed and taught to us. When this ideal body image or feminine body gets inculcated in us at a young age, it becomes internalized discipline that enables one to distinguish herself from other