Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Principles of justice according to rawls scholars essays
The concept of justice as equity rawls essay
Principles of justice according to rawls scholars essays
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Difference Principle
Every citizen aspires to obtain a just society in which to live. Some political philosophers hold differing opinions as how to reach this just society. One of the more widely accepted approaches is John Rawl's Difference Principle.
To achieve a just society, Rawls believes in two principles. The first principle states that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. The second principle is that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a)reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and b) attached to positions and offices open to all (Rawls, 60).
Within Rawls' second principle of justice lies the difference principle or the maximin rule. In accordance with this principle, all income and wealth is to be distributed equally unless the unequal distribution is to everyone's advantage. Rawls holds the ideal political theory. I believe that this is in fact the best principle in which we should live. When viewing justice as fairness, this outcome will be the most favorable for all parties involved. In this society everyone benefits, so even if there are slight inequalities, the end result will come out better than if there was complete equality.
So for this to work, then even the least advantaged must profit from the inequalities. If anyone were hurt by these uneven wages, the principle would be found unjust.
As an example, we can view a society running its economy in one of three ways. The first way would be with completely equal distribution of income. Everyone would receive $10,000 dollars a year. Since no one earns more or less than anyone else, we could view this as on...
... middle of paper ...
...seems as though one man would be making a profit at the others expense. But Rawls comes back to believe that although this is bad, it is the lazy person's choice to be lazy that is the factor of justice.
I strongly believe that John Rawls' Difference Principle is a sound theory. I would agree with practically any situation where all parties benefit without the downfall or disadvantage of its participants. I see only good coming from this theory. In the equally distributive society, although continuing to maintain a sense of justice, it lacks in that it is more difficult for its people create savings and economic growth. Therefore, no one is really capable of gaining wealth. At least Rawls' Difference Principle gives citizens a chance to gain wealth and a better lifestyle. Any system that promotes a better standard of living is the better one in my book.
In the treatise named “Leviathan” published in 1651, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) proposed an early variant of equality among men that inequality did not exist in natural condition, meaning everyone is born equal; however, inequality's existence was the result of civil laws (Hobbes & Gaskin, 1998). In this sense, inequality is generally referred to social inequality which is characterized by the existence of unequal opportunities and rewards for different social positions or statuses within a group or society; plus, this negative social phenomenon contains structured and recurrent patterns of unequal distributions of goods, wealth, opportunities, rewards, and punishments (Crossman, 2012).
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
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.
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
Justice is seen as a concept that is balanced between law and morality. The laws that support social harmony are considered just. Rawls states that justice is the first virtue of social institutions; this means that a good society is one structured according to principles of justice. The significance of principles of justice is to provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of the society and defining the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of the society. According to Rawls, justice is best understood by a grasp of the principles of justice (Rawls, 1971). The principles are expected to represent the moral basis of political government. These principles indicate that humankind needs liberty and freedom so long as they do harm others. Rawls states that justice is significant to human development and prosperity.
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.
However, as Arora notes, “in practice, people don’t have real equality of opportunity due to various disadvantages.” (87) In America, the richest socioeconomic income group owns a staggering 84 % of the nation’s wealth. (91) Moreover, “a kid from the poorest fifth of all households has a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percentile income bracket, while a kid from the richest fifth has a 22 percent chance.” (91) Clearly, this is not a feasible model. Comparatively, the egalitarian model Arora discusses—while far more equitable and utilitarian—undermines the moral deserts of achievement that are quintessential to the very fabric of our nation. Therefore, I find a mixture between the libertarian and meritocratic approach to be the most just. Not only does the model account for person achievement, but also places a premium on equality of
Out of this experiment Rawls provides us with two basic principles of rules of: 1) every person should have equal opportunity to access a justice system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all and; 2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both; a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged offices and b) positions opportunities should be made available to all under fair and equality conditions (242).... ... middle of paper ... ... I would opt against some other economic society, not knowing whether or not it would satisfy the conditions of providing the best opportunity for the least in my society.
Two advantages of the difference principle will be discussed and analyzed; the first advantage is that it is morally right or fair. The difference principle represents justice and equality, even if a person receives lesser income than another person, the way they are treated in society and the compensation they receive is more than enough to regulate the inequalities that are present. Rawls defines justice as, “the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought” (3). The fact that it is just should be one of the first aspects that the people in the original position should consider when deliberating between the principles as it is uncompromising by being the first human
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".
Many who have disagreed about the huge effect of the growing socioeconomic inequality and/or income inequality, have argued with the suggestion that this inequality can benefit today’s world. Tejvan Pettinger, an economics teacher, argues, “If someone works harder and as a consequence receives a higher wage then this is not market failure.” He suggests that by rewarding hard workers there will be a “boost of productivity” which then he goes on will “lead to a higher output.” Another argument is if workers can get extra income, that it can ’trickle down’ to others. An example of this is if an entrepreneur sets up a business he may become a millionaire, but also will create jobs and provide income for other workers.
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.
...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.
Money is an essential part of life where every people can satisfy whatever they need and every person in America has a chance to find a job. However, some of the people in the country wanted to go on with their life freely by being a part of a welfare. Furthermore, distribution of wealth is a huge demand of every citizen. Everyone today is trying to look down for every people in the lower class, as they did not give any benefit to the country, waiting for the benefits that they will receive from the government. For instance, when most lower class people have gone through a financial crisis due to overspending, insufficient fund or pay for their work to support themselves and/or their family. The example shows that lower class people made the economy of the country unstable, however, the middle class and the higher class is at fault as well. Furthermore, even though the benefit of that the lower class received is from the middle class, the middle class as well benefits from the higher class. To sum up, every class is at fault towards giving the country’s economy a positive