A House Divided: Injustice in the Family A central tenet of conventional liberal theory that has drawn the ire of many feminists is the public/private distinction, which is the idea that a political conception of justice ought not regulate the way people act outside of political life, such as within their families. Between the publications of A Theory of Justice and Justice as Fairness, John Rawls’ position on the public/private distinction evolved considerably. Two of the works that he cites in connection with this change are Michael Sandel’s Liberalism and the Limits of Justice and Susan Okin’s Justice, Gender, and the Family, which take staunchly different views of the implications of Rawls’ theory on the family. Whereas Sandel believes that, in the context of intimate relationships, claims of justice supplant the virtues that had previously governed the relationships without restoring the relationships’ full moral character; Okin believes that, while members of families can expect more than justice from the relationship, no association is exempted from the demands of justice. Over the course of this paper, I will highlight some of the important aspects of each of these positions and then introduce a third position, proposed by Joshua Cohen, that seeks to reconcile them. The first of these theorists to address this subject was Sandel. Responding to Rawls’ Theory of Justice, he argues that there are some relationships governed by virtues other than justice (such as
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.
Lives for Native Americans on reservations have never quite been easy. There are many struggles that most outsiders are completely oblivious about. In her book The Roundhouse, Louise Erdrich brings those problems to light. She gives her readers a feel of what it is like to be Native American by illustrating the struggles through the life of Joe, a 13-year-old Native American boy living on a North Dakota reservation. This book explores an avenue of advocacy against social injustices. The most observable plight Joe suffers is figuring out how to deal with the injustice acted against his mother, which has caused strife within his entire family and within
John Rawls was dissatisfied with the traditional philosophical approach to justifying social and political actions therefore he attempted to provide a reasonable theory of social justice through a contract theory approach. In his work, A Theory of Justice, Rawls bases almost the entirety of his piece on the question, what kind of organization of society would rational persons choose if they were in an initial position of independence and equality and setting up a system of cooperation (A Theory of Justice-enotes)? From this seemingly simple question, Rawls goes into further detail describing what he believes society would and should do when setting up a fair and just organizational structure. Throughout his
A Critical Analysis of The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap
Discuss the relevance today of Abraham Lincoln’s statement, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Rawls theory of justice is a modern alternative to utilitarianism. He believes that justice must be given on the ground of fairness and moral equality of persons. (Shaw, 2016, p.120). His theory comes under social-contract practice. People in the original position choose the basic principles of their society. They should imagine their selves behind the veil of ignorance, means have no information about themselves. He thinks any principle decided under these conditions is considered the principle of justice. (Shaw, 2016,
There comes a time, in most citizens’ lives when they must stand against their government to produce change. Change can only be acquired if people take the necessary actions for it to take place. Nelson Mandela was a historical revolutionist who helped his people in Africa, to revolt against the government, in order to bring about change. As a result, he was sentenced to prison for 27 years for trying to overthrow the government. Many revolutionist, such as Arundhati Roy and Martin Luther King Jr., explain in their essays how the role of the citizen is to stand against injustice, and how the government labels them as anti-national because of it.
John Rawls was the second most important political thinker of his time. His main contribution to the idea of a civil society is his theory of justice. Rawls believed in “social primary goods” which included rights,
The House Divided Speech was addressed by Abraham Lincoln on June 1958. He delivered the speech upon his acceptance of Illinois Republican Party’s nomination as the senator of the state. Thus the speech became a very important launching campaign for his success in politics thus giving him a national limelight that saw him in the elections to the presidency in 1860.The speech primarily addressed on the issue of slavery in America. Abraham Lincoln delivered his speech aimed at establishing his strong beliefs towards the acts of slavery. The speech was also meant to point out a differentiating factor of beliefs from Stephen Douglas and the rest of the top governmental
The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those
Rawls believes 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. This scenario of negotiating the laws of that society that will be commonly agreed upon and beneficial to
First this essay will demonstrate how Rawls’s theory will affect the society and its structure in terms of basic social institutions, wealth distribution and major economic limits and opportunities. Then, the essay will demonstrate the same for Nozick’s theory on distributive justice. I will then describe, in which society I would prefer to live in and why.
John Rawls was an American political and moral philosopher. Rawls attempts to determine the principles of social justice. In this essay, I will elucidate John Rawls’ views on forming a social contract, the counter-arguments against Rawls’ theory and finally the state of debate on the counter-arguments. John Rawls set out on his discussion on justice and fairness in his book A Theory of Justice 1971. Rawls theory describes a society with free citizens holding equal basic rights regardless of the social status (poor or rich). Each society has its way of attempting to bring about equality in its political and economic systems. The tenets of distributive justice, therefore, act as an ethical guide to the
In Chapter 6, Sandel introduces to us an American philosopher by the name of John Rawls. According to Rawls, Sandel says, the way to think about justice “is to ask what principles we would agree to in an initial situation of inequality” (pg. 140). He calls this state of inequality a “veil of ignorance” which prevents people from knowing anything about their wealth, income, social status, racial identification, religious convictions, gender, ethnicity etc. In this state, Rawls says, the principles people would agree to would be just. Under these conditions, Rawls reasons, people would not choose utilitarianism- fearing they might be part of the minority. They would also not choose principles like libertarianism, feudalism. Rawls maintains that two principles will be chosen: basic liberties, and social and economic equality. A major argument that arises from this idea is whether consent to a contract “creates an obligation on its own, or is element of benefit or reliance also required” (pg. 144). Sandel says contracts realize two ideals: autonomy and reciprocity. Contracts represent autonomy; the “obligations [contracts] create carry weight because they are self imposed, and reciprocity; the “obligation to fulfill [a contract] arises from the obligation to repay others for the benefits they provide us” (pg. 144, 145). If put in a situation such as the veil of ignorance, most people would, Rawls suggests, adopt the “difference principle”:
In regards to theories of justice, Rawl’s significantly overlooks members of society within the realm of dependency. This can be seen in the way he speaks towards people with dependency needs and those who fulfill those needs, or more pointedly, the way he doesn’t write towards them, at all. The holes that are left in Rawl’s theory are remedied by Kittay’s analysis of dependency, and her understanding of dependency and dependency workers. The holes in Rawl’s theory include the importance of human connection, as well as the effects of the patriarchy on members of society. Kittay adequately illustrates the importance of including the concept dependency when attempting to achieve a just society in her analysis