Constructive Procedure for Recognizing the Principles of Justice

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.

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 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

The preliminary point into an inquiry of distributive justice is to disconnect the conjunction of “distributive,” and “justice”. For the purpose of this essay, I will inherit and accept John Rawls explanation of justice from A Theory of Justice. “Justice,” according to Rawls, “is the first virtue of social institutions.” Therefore, from a societal perspective, justice as the first virtue negates the utilitarian maxim that a loss of freedom for one would be acceptable if there was a greater good to be shared by others. In a truly just society, all people are treated fair. The questions of individual liberties are taken as settled. In the just society, liberty, rights, and fairness are not subject to a utilitarian calculation nor are they susceptible to political bargaining.

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

We live in a society that holds equality as a paramount value. Most, if not all, of the Western World generally believes in equality for its citizens, not as a privilege but as a fundamental right, and not to be infringed upon except for under the most egregious of circumstances. Not only is it a right, but it is a necessity, as claimed by philosopher Simone Weil, “Equality is a vital need of the human soul” (Simone Weil, 1940). In her essay “Equality”, Weil attempts to reconcile mankind’s need for equality with the preexisting inequalities in our societies. She does this by explaining two types of equality that she has defined: quantitative inequality, the inevitable inequalities due to the conditions of privilege or disadvantage under which we are born or find ourselves victim due to no fault of our own, and qualitative inequality, the inequalities contributed exclusively to the values which we have placed on one another as a result of our quantitative inequalities. By this definition, then, Weil communicates to the reader that equality is, in many ways, a function of the respect we express to one another and that every person is due the same amount of respect from individuals as well as institutions and customs; however, though contrary to intuition, Weil’s argument that there may be a certain level of inequality essential to creating the balance between the two types on inequality has altered my understanding of the justice system.

John Rawls a political theorist engages in various political theories and arguments that contradict, support, and scrutinizes others theories made by other notable political theorist. Rawls contemplates usage of theories such as The Theory of Justice, Veil of Ignorance and Nozick’s Entitlement Theory which will be discussed within this analysis for their relation to society and what benefits or aliments they hold if any on society’s effective function.

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 and Robert Nozick both believed in the idea of crafting a just society. They had different ideas on its implementation, however. In the following paper I will first briefly outline the two authors central ideas for a just society. I will discuss their thought experiments including the veil of ignorance, initial position, Wilt Chamberlain and even a non zero sum expanding pie. I will discuss means and ends and why both writers claim to be treating others as ends before discussing the problems of property acquisition and why it might be the fundamental the main difference between the two theories.

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

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

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

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

The original position is a device of representation, and the principles of justice which “survive” this “filter” are deemed a suitable for the real world. Moreover, it is important to clearly understand that Rawls uses these theoretical intellectual tools to help achieve reform in the actual and concrete real world rather (opposed to truths based in metaphysics).