Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Concept of justice
“The Idea of Justice” by Amartya Sen is a book that discusses how justice is defined and approached. Sen is a professor at Harvard University and the 1998 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics (Sen, 2009). His other written works include topics on Indian history and culture, social choice theory, and welfare economics (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2014). Sen’s book is divided into four parts. His writing style is easy to follow. He would make note of discussing a topic in future chapters, remind the reader when he was looking back to an idea already mentioned, and elaborate on a thought where the foundation had been previously laid out in another chapter. This style gave an amount of fluidity to the book that enhanced the ability of the reader …show more content…
Throughout his book he illustrated a need to incorporate many perspectives when trying to define what is just. This is similar to George DeMartino’s idea in “The Economist’s Oath” that society benefits from diversity of thought. He asserted that a variety of opinions was important when examining an issue, in particular issues that are more complex. He warned against group think (DeMartino, 2011). Sen too discourages group think as it can be seen in the current thoughts on justice as based in transcendentalism and an idea of defining utopian institutions of justice (Sen, 2009). Both Sen and DeMartino reflect what could be a trend of thought sparked by increased globalization; a revised renaissance perspective of recognizing the many voices of different cultures and beliefs as global communication and connectivity have become easier. “Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education” by Sonia Nieto and Patty Bode looked at the concerns of social justice and the benefits of a multicultural education. They discussed the transition in thought toward embracing this teaching style over the past twenty years (Nieto & Bode, 2011). The works of Sen, DeMartino, Nieto, and Bode reflect increased diversity. The singular way of examining an issue as right or wrong, ethical or unethical, just or unjust is being shed for a multidimensional way of representing a seemingly yes or no
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.
Currently, in our society we can see an increase in inequality and discrimination towards different people. Unfortunately, the American ideology does not take into account the diversity that exists in the country. The lack of an educational perspective that includes all people regardless of gender, race, sex, religion and social class is vitally important to take into account not just those people who meet the “normal” perspectives imposed by society, but also take in consideration those who don’t necessarily meet the social expectations. It could be said that intersectionality is a tool which helps us to analyze and defend multiple discriminations and above all to understand how different factors influence the rights and opportunities that
Many theorists and philosophers have discussed these questions in-depth and much of the literature has been framed between a ‘statist and cosmopolitan’ approach. The cosmopolitan connotes as a belief in cosmopolis or a ‘world state’ and they believe that a single set of fundamental norms of justice applies to all citizens, regardless of nationality. (Heywood, 2012) Cosmopolitans usually determine that we should all be concerned about inequality, fairness...
Nearly a century before the beginning of "multiculturalism," Jane Addams put forward her conception of the moral significance of diversity. Each member of a democracy, Addams believed was under a moral obligation to seek out diverse experiences, making a daily effort to confront others' perspectives. She believed that morality must be seen as a social rather than an individual endeavor and democracy as a way of life rather than merely a basis for laws. Failing this, both democracy and ethics remain sterile, empty concepts (www.semcoop.com).
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.
Explaining how to challenge the discriminatory attitudes that remain rampant throughout the world, Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in a recent article, quotes the incisive words of Archbishop Desmond Tutu: "We are all of equal worth, born equal in dignity and born free and for this reason deserving respect. . . . We belong in a world whose very structure, whose essence, is diversity almost bewildering in extent, and it is to live in a fool's paradise to ignore this basic fact."
...'s Children, is an important tool in the education of teachers to help them to see teaching is not a politic-free practice that has little to do with social justice. Through reading multicultural theorists like Delpit, teachers are better prepared to deal with the issues like injustice and "remove the blinders built of stereotypes, mono-cultural instructional methodologies, ignorance, social distance biased research and racism" in the classrooms (Delpit, 1995, pg.69).
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
As humans, we have innate and strongly held feelings regarding what we consider fair. This idea of fairness is held in high regard by many people and can greatly affect their satisfaction in life. Fairness is fundamental to our ideas of justice. There are two concepts of justice that people hold. These are retributive justice and distributive justice. Retributive justice concerns the distribution of rewards and punishments based on what people deserve. This type of justice is applied on an individual basis. Distributive justice, on the other hand, is applied across society and is the type of justice that directly appeals to our sense of fairness in life. Distributive justice concerns the distribution of benefits in society, as well as the duties that come with these benefits. It specifically entails that resources in a society should be fairly distributed to all members of society. Distributive justice is a highly debated topic, especially in ethics and morality. Despite people having very strong feelings regarding what is fair, and how fairness affects our lives, moral theories can not reach a consensus regarding what method of distributive justice appeals to our sense of fairness and why. One popular moral theory that has
The benefits of civilization were therefore justified, and the promoters of social justice were of great importance to the communities living in India and its environs. The Indian community could have proceeded with their retrogressive activities were they not exposed by civilization. The policies and practices that were introduced provided an opportunity for Indians to adapt to the changes that come with modernization and this brought about cultural and social justice.
I. As one of the interpretations of the second principle of justice as fairness, Rawls argues that “democratic equality” is the best avenue for citizens to realize their life projects, as meeting of the difference principle with fair equality of opportunity. The second principle states 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, 53). With an unequal distribution of situations, the purpose of society “is not to establish and secure the more attractive prospects of those better off unless doing so is to the advantage of those less fortunate” (Rawls, 65). The principles of justice are in place to ensure that the “assignment of rights and duties” through the basic structure of society justly distribute both the “benefits and burdens” of social and economic advantages (Rawls, 47).
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
ABSTRACT: John Searle opposes multiculturalism because he views it as part of a movement to undermine the concepts of truth and objectivity in the Western tradition. Richard Rorty disagrees with Searle about the relation between philosophical theories of truth and academic practices, but he is neutral on the issue of multiculturalism. Charles Taylor approaches the issue historically, defending multiculturalism as emerging from one branch of liberal political theory. I argue that the debate over epistemological and political issues has tended to obscure the educational benefits of multiculturalism. A multicultural curriculum works very well in fulfilling the traditional goals of education in philosophy. It can assist the teacher as Socratic "midwife" and "gadfly" in delivering students from their narrow and uncritical opinions and awakening them to a world of intellectual diversity. Thus, multiculturalism is not so much a recent movement as a new name for an old method of teaching.
In his article, Democracy as a Universal Value, Amartya Sen asserts that democracy is a universal value. In order to develop his argument Sen needs to state his definition of democracy and define what he means by universal value. In the course of Sen's argument he gives his view of the relationship between democracy and the economy. He then defends his view of democracy as a universal value against a main argument that deals with cultural differences between regions.
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.