A Theory of Justice Essay

Probably, many of us feel that our societies are a little or sometimes completely unjust. However, it is hard to explain our sense of justice (or equality) to the authority that in a way that sounds rational and not huffish. That is why we need John Rawls. He is an American philosopher of the twentieth-century who provided us a model that is reveal what is truly unfair and how we can correct is. He was born in Maryland in the USA in 1921. The tragedy of the Second World War, the shocking poverty and his brothers’ death made him responded to injustices of the world from his early childhood. All this experiences inspired him to go to a college because he wanted to use the power of ideas to change the unjust world into equal. The publication

John Rawls wrote his book, “Theory of Justice,” in which he described how people are rational beings but often times people can focus on themselves. This causes people to see justice

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

Rawls has an idea called the “justice as fairness.” He believes that if you place people in a situation that is fair among all the people and they take all relevant information into account, then the ideas they would agree to are also fair. According to Rawls, the original position is crucial to the justice of fairness because it is designed to be a fair and impartial point of view. In taking up this point of view, people are to imagine themselves in the position of free and equal people who agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice. The main aspect of the original position is the veil of ignorance. It’s job is to take away the person’s knowledge of particular facts about themselves, such as sex, class, race, and ethnicity, that they could use to their advantage or that could be used against them, if put in a certain economic position. The parties have to have some form of knowledge, though, so they are allowed general facts. Things such as people and societies, including knowledge of the laws and economics, psychology, political science, and biology and other natural sciences. Rawls argues that if a person doesn’t know if they will suffer or benefit from society, they will choose the best possible option of the best possible outcome. This all leads back to justice as fairness and the idea that people put in a fair situation will choose fair ideas, also. (Theory of Justice,

John Rawls argues for an universal standard of justice, conceived as “Justice as Fairness”. Rawls presents his standard of justice as a framework of principles for determining optimal and fair resolutions among persons in society. In this essay, I will analyze Rawls’s principles of justice and his original position and contemplate a utilitarian response to the original position while critiquing the universality of the original position. Lastly, applied to the relevant example of democratic rights, I will show how the non universality of the original position allows for unfair distributions under a Rawlsian framework.

John Rawls was an America philosopher whose idea was to develop an experiment for individuals to seek a fair notion of justice. Rawls experiment was a hypothetical one that engaged the individual to look at society and fairness from another perceptive. Individuals were to use their imagination and pretend that they were born into different lives, for example, if their mother was a single parent that worked two jobs just to put food on the table vs. the lavish life style one lives today. Society isn’t just, but if the individuals didn’t know their position or their background it could eliminate discrimination and give rise for equal opportunity for all. Rawls believed in the notion of the social contract theory, if everyone was in agreement they could form a sustainable society. Rawls proposed the government could possibly work for everyone, under these pretenses. Rawls had two key principles which focused on

ABSTRACT. Adapting the traditional social contract approach of earlier years to a more contemporary use, John Rawls initiated an unparaleled revitalization of social philosophy. Instead of arguing for the justification of civil authority or the form that it should take, Professor Rawls is more interested in the principles that actuate basic social institutions —he presupposes authority and instead focuses on its animation. In short, Rawls argues that “justice as fairness” should be that basic animating principle.

At first, this second principle of justice appears unconvincing compared to the Principle of Equal Liberty. Why would society not choose complete social and economic equality? On the other hand, why would some individuals not risk massive social and economic inequality with the possibility of victory? The short answer lies in Rawls’ characterization of human nature. According to Rawls, the two principles of justice are the only choices for any rational, self-interested person standing behind the veil of ignorance – which represents an original position of equality – because two masters rule human nature: selfishness and collaboration.

If pressed for the most simplistic one-sentence answer to how I viewed my understanding of this work I would not hesitate to exclaim, “The most conclusive qualitative argument for ‘justice as fairness’”. Notwithstanding, this simplistic review needs to be supported in a way that encourages others, who are inclined, to relish the challenge of critical discourse on the imperative questions of political philosophy raised by John Rawls.

(1) This paper poses the thesis that, from a Rawlsian perspective, justice in our modern day society is impossible, given simply the disparity between the ultra-rich and the extremely poor. (2) It further explores the problem of inequality in the United States. (3) It then analyzes Rawls’ conception of justice as fairness. (4) And finally, it assesses the prospect and possibility of justice as fairness in the real world. ===================

John Rawls was a philosopher who held the James Bryant Conant University Professorship at Harvard University. Rawls published several books and many articles. In one of his most remarkable works, A Theory of Justice, Rawls depicts his views on the utilitarian position taken by many Western democracies; Ralws believed this method of social justice was unfair to the least advantaged. In fact, this method could do as much to harm those minorities. Rawls position in regard to social fairness and utilitarianism is precise to a certain extent. The argument of utilitarianism has a number of problems, including, especially, that it seems to be consistent with the idea of the tyranny of majorities over minorities. However,

In A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents his argument for justice and inequality. Rawls theorizes that in the original position, a hypothetical state where people reason without bias, they would agree to live in a society based on two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 4). These two principles of justice are named the first and second principles. The first is the equal rights and liberties principle. The second is a combination of the difference principle and the fair equality of opportunity principle, or FEOP (Rawls 1971, 53). Rawls argues that inequality will always be inevitable in any society (Rawls 1971, 7). For example, there will always be a varied distribution of social and economic advantages. Some people will be wealthier than

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,

John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" has long been revered as a marvel of modern political philosophy. It's most well-known for the two principles of justice outlined by Rawls: (1) that all persons have an equal right to liberty; and (2) that (a) all inequalities in society should be arranged to benefit the least advantages, and (b) that all positions and offices should be open and accessible as outlined by fair equality of opportunity. Rawls' conception of society, as a "co-operative venture for mutual gain", forms the basis for both principles, and he is at all times concerned with creating a stable concept of fair and just society. Rawls' second principle, dealing with distributive justice and equality

John Rawls states that the principle of fairness is important as it applies to individuals the principle of fairness are a link between the two principles of social or political justice and individual obligations to comply with specific social practices (Pogge, 2007). By expanding the scope of what one considers to be an ‘end’ to include both aspects of nature as well as future generations, one can transform the implications of Rawls’ theory (Pogge, 2007). Rawls advances his theory of justice through what is called the Original Position which is a hypothetical situation in which all individuals are granted perfect equality and are asked to choose a principle of justice behind a veil of ignorance, which eliminates their biases (Pogge, 2007). The hypothetical persons in the Original Position, ignorant of who and what they will be in society and perfectly equal to one another, are able to truly come to a consensus as to what a just society would be (Pogge, 2007). Justice