In this essay, we will be exploring the idea of democracy in relation to John Rawls’ and Robert Nozick’s conceptions of justice. We will begin by evaluating what each intellectual has written in relation to democracy and then compare the structure of their arguments for their conceptions of justice.
We begin with John Rawls’s conception of justice. He has two principles of justice; they are the principle of basic liberties, the second principle has two parts: the principle of fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle. According to Cohen (2003), the principle of basic liberty says that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive system of liberties of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of
…show more content…
The first is the content of the most reasonable conception of justice requires a democratic political system. Since the principles of justice are substantive, we must have imperfect procedural justice, this is because the process isn’t guaranteed to meet the standards set by the principles of justice, even if the participants aim to meet it. Also, a constitution is just if it can be agreed to by all parties who aim to apply the principles of justice considering relevant facts of society. Cohen goes on to say that since democracy can take many forms, the second principle may have a bigger role than just a reinforcing role and that it could play a more affirmative role in deciding which kind of constitution to adopt. So, if we consider the idea of consensual democracy is that laws should have the support of major groups in the society, this could lead to multiparty arrangements with shared executive power. Cohen cites Lijphart by saying that, in comparison with a majoritarian democracy, we might select a consensual democracy over a majoritarian because it appears to be better suited to advancing the second principle and “a solidaristic political culture.” Consequently, participants in the constitutional stage must not pick a constitution that best fits a single set of existing political …show more content…
A democratic society can exist even under a despot as it is a system of cooperation of equal individuals. Each member of such a society is treated with equal respect and equal rights on the basis that they understand requirements of justice that provide the fundamental standards of public life. What Rawls has in mind is that he wants a shift from a social caste (or feudal system) to a social egalitarian system This could be realised, in one way, by each member of such a society recognizing everyone else as an equal moral person and is to be treated with the same respect regardless of social position; whereas, with a despot, people of a rank would respect each other, but there would be a difference in the way they treated and were treated by other ranks. Another way is the basis of equality, which lies in our capacity to understand the requirements of justice that provide the fundamental standards of public life. These two meanings of the term democratic—as a form of society and political regime—are linked by the fact that such a political arrangement expresses the idea that the members of the society are equal persons. So, great inequalities are unjust in a Rawlsian democratic society, if they conflict with the difference principle, and everybody should be able to attain a desirable social position and not be excluded arbitrarily (arbitrarily understood in terms of class background)
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.
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.
Rawls strive to determine how we can make a society as just as possible. Rawls derives two principles; liberty principle and the difference principle. He also gives a theoretical device that he calls “the original position” and “the veil of ignorance” this device is meant to help us in the way that we picture our self behind a veil. We do not know the basic things about ourselves like our sex, age, financial status etc. This device is to help us be totally neutral in the sense that we do not know our status in society. After putting our self in a status quo if you will, we can now decide on what us just for the whole society. Rawls derives then the difference principle. To put this is Rawls own words, the difference principle is: “Then the difference principle is a strongly egalitarian conception in the sense that unless there is a distribution that makes both persons better off an equal distribution is to be preferred
John Rawls then turns to his justice principles, arguing that the parties in the Original Position would adopt two such principles, which would structure the theoretical organization. The first and most important principle is the Liberty Principle. The
This passage particularly coincides with the concept of distribution Rawls, Two Principles of Justice. Rawls’ principles of justice include first; the equal distribution of rights and liberties for all and second; Permissible inequality in distributions, according to what is being distributed. Distribution must however benefit everyone and offices should be open to all. Rawls concedes that the government, consented for by the people should distribute economic and social goods to its citizens, yet he claims that inequality will develop over the distribution because of certain factors such as need, position and so
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
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,
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
Rawls assumes that these hypothetical people would be conservative risk takers and in a situation of uncertainty would opt for the least disadvantageous outcome in any choice presented to them and they would choose those principles that would maximize the position of the worst off, for just in case they should be the worst off. The two principles of justice that such people choose are:- 1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a similar liberty to others. 2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantages b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality and opportunity.
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
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
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
The distributive justice theory of John Rawls concerns justice as fairness. In his theory, Rawls defines justice as demanding equality, unless inequality makes the least advantaged person better off. Rawls proposes two major principles of justice: (1) that each person should have the same equal right to basic liberties and (2) that social and economic inequalities are attached to positions and offices open to all under equality of opportunity and are to the benefit of the least advantaged group of society. This theory is determined by a social contract that assumes there is a natural state on which people will agree based on moral equality. In this social contract, all members wear a veil of ignorance through which they do not know anything about their own
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
Basic liberties included things such as freedom of speech and due process of law. He specifically pointed out that the right to own a “means of production” or business and the right to wealth were not a basic liberty. Rawls ' second principle dealt with the issue of equality and keeping things fair amongst individuals in the society. He admitted that a society could not exist without inequalities among the people due to individual characteristics such as a person 's drive or motivation, social class and luck. To adjust to these uncontrollable facts Rawls second principle proclaimed, “Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: “first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and