Analysis Of John Stuart Mill 's ' Veil Of Ignorance ' And ' The Classic Social Contract Theory Essay

Everyone has their own very unique views on everything in the world. What’s right and what’s wrong is a good example of how humanity views different subjects let’s say a man kills another man to protect his family from harm he may see it as okay to do but in the bible it says “thou shall should not kill” so it’s all how you look at it. In this paper I will be discussing the different view point of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on the most basic tenets of classical liberalism. For example the states of nature, the social contracts, and the sets of view of the rights and obligations of citizens and states. My first topic that I will be discussing is the different views of social contracts. It will go in order from Hobbes to Locke then to Rousseau.

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.

In this paper, I will describe the concepts of market justice and social justice, explain how the two principles complement each other and in what way they conflict in delivery of health care in the United States. Secondly, I will discuss how health care is rationed in the market justice and social justice systems. Finally, I will discuss the types of health insurance that is based on market justice and social justice principles.

In this article G. H. Jones & H. Kantarjian expose the scary truth of health care. They explain that health care is a basic human right for individuals to have, but is not guaranteed in the freedom of the U.S. and is rather a privilege. Freedom is seen as the equal opportunity to have health care. This being said, they discuss the downfall of not having health care, the inequality that has corrupted our nation, and what our money is actually going towards. In the end their goal is to inform us citizens while making us aware of our actual privileges.

There are two type of human rights: those that are intrinsic, ones that we would still hold if there were no structured society or laws (for example, the right to adequate food), and those that are socially and politically constructed, meaning rights that exist because of conversation, agreements, ordinances, and laws (for example, healthcare) (Taylor, 2010). It would be hard to make an argument for health care as an intrinsic right but I would, and will in the next part of this paper, argue for healthcare as a political right. The General Assembly of the United Nations presented this exact argument when it included access to healthcare on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including healthcare as an inalienable right that should be provided to the people (Assembly, 1948). Despite its inclusion on this document though, the United States is among a minority of wealthy nations that do not provide health care to its people. We as citizens of the United States must come to determine what “counts among [us] as just and unjust” (Rawls, 1971, p. 11) and what “is rational for [us] to pursue” (Rawls, 1971, p. 11) as a nation and what we view as rights for our people. Shafer-Landau suggests several constraints of thinking that are important in this

Block, W. (2008). Is there a human right to medical insurance?. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 27(1/4), 1-33. Retrieved from http://secure.pdcnet.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/pdc/bvdb.nsf/toc?openform&journal=pdc_bpej&yearrange=1999 –2009&category=0027_40182_2008

This paper will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument about the freedom of expression of opinion, and how Mill justified that freedom. I will also discuss how strong his argument was and whether or not I agree with it. John Stuart Mill was a political economist, civil servant, and most importantly an English philosopher from the nineteenth century. Throughout his writing, John Stuart Mill touched on the issues of liberty, freedom and other human rights. In his philosophical work, On Liberty, he discussed the relationship between authority and liberty, as well as the importance of individuality in society. In chapter two of On Liberty, Mill examined the freedom of expression in more detail, examining arguments for and against his own.

John Rawls wrote several highly influential articles in the 19950`s and 1960`s, his first book, A Theory of Justice (1971), revitalized the social-contract tradition, using it to articulate and defend a detailed vision of egalitarian liberalism. In Political Liberalism [PL] (1993), he recast the role of political philosophy, accommodating it to the effectively permanent “reasonable pluralism” of religious, philosophical, and other comprehensive doctrines or worldviews that characterize modern societies. He explains how philosophers can characterize public justification and the legitimate, democratic use of collective coercive power while accepting that pluralism. (Richardson)

How do we apply aged philosophies to present day problems? Like his forefather John Stuart Mill, modern thinker Peter Singer approaches moral philosophy from a utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s and Mill’s utilitarian philosophies share numerous similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree that selflessness can end human suffering. In addition, their views concerning the significance of consequences align; however, they conflict on the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism by accurately recognizing the discrepancy between absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also by considering the intricate concept of motive.

John Stuart Mill was a classical liberal thinker and believed, through the influence of his father, that man deserved to live a life that promoted the greatest amount of happiness with limited government intervention. Mill grew up with the belief that there was no God and therefore believed that man is born inherently good; government should be limited to allow individuals to make their own decisions from their inherently good instincts; economic freedom provided individuals with the protection of rights and promoted the ideology that Mill stood for most, Utilitarianism which highly influenced classical liberalism.

John Stuart Mill introduces his assessment of Utilitarianism by stating how a standardized system in which people’s actions may be judged to differentiate between right and wrong has been minimal in progress. He expresses the misconception with the way utility is understood by the general populous and other philosophers. The struggle to lay the foundations in what constitutes as right and wrong dates longer back than 2000 years ago.

Therefore, the restrictions on the particular knowledge in the original position are of fundamental importance (Rawls, 1971). Without the original position, the parties involved would not be able to work out any definite principles of justice (Rawls, 1971). The society who does not enact a social contract from the original position would then have to be content with a vague understanding of justice and therefore have very little substance to the agreement itself (Rawls, 1971). The veil of ignorance makes it possible to have a unanimous choice of a particular conception of justice (Rawls,

John Rawls, who is an American political philosopher, urges for a heightened idea of the social contract in his book “A Theory of Justice” when he states “the guiding idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interest would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association. These principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of

Communitarian critics of Rawls have argued that his A Theory of Justice provides an inadequate account of individuals in the original position. Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argues that Rawls' conception of the person divorces any constitutive attachments that persons might have to their ends. Hence, Sandel asserts that Rawls privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals at the expense of communal interests. I do not find Sandel's specific criticisms to be an accurate critique of what Rawls is doing in A Theory of Justice. However, this does not mean the more general thrust of the communitarian analysis of Rawls' conception of the person must be abandoned. By picking up the pieces

“Absolute liberty is the absence of restraint; responsibility is restraint; therefore, the ideally free individual is responsible to himself” - Henry Brooks Adams. There has been great debate, past and present with regards to what constitutes as an individuals liberty. It has been subject to constant ridicule and examination due to violations of civil rights. Freedom, liberty, and independence are all important human rights represented within John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty.