Contemporary Political Theory Should We Have On Policy-Makers?

Ask yourself, “What is my contribution to society?” and “What do I expect in return?” Justice, liberty and equality remain at the forefront of the American way. Securing these, however, is key, with reference to the contentious debate on these rights. Philosophers John Rawls and Robert Nozick present countering views on achieving liberty and justice. On one hand, Rawls’ view of justice would maximize liberty equally among all socioeconomic groups through his notion of the Veil of Ignorance, framed in accordance with two principles. This notion supports big government, excessive taxation, and a welfare state. Nozick’s theory of justice, the Entitlement Theory, deals primarily with the unjust distribution of property, while placing personal accountability with the individual. Admittedly, Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance theory is a fair process, per se, but his unfolding of that notion, along with supporting principles actually subjugates the poor and underprivileged because it inhibits

Nozick argues, is about respecting people’s rights in particular their rights to property and their rights to self-ownership. He thinks we need to allow people the freedom to decide what they want to do with what they own and do as they wish with it. Nozick shares a more understanding of human desire and having your rights and freedom. For Rawls, “He feels that from the original position or all members of society are equal. In practice Rawls’ justice ensures that all members share the same freedoms and that holding advantageous office or position is a prospect open to all”. The veil of ignorance Rawls thinks that the only way that persons can formulate laws that are fair is to be avoid any knowledge of their individual characteristics. This rule restricts the introduction of personal advantage. Being blind to one’s situation gives the generation of laws benefit one man over another. If I had to choose side I would go with Nozick I think he has a better understanding of what he talking about then with Rawls thinks and argues that the state should have whatever powers are necessary to make sure that those citizens who are least well-off are as well-off as they can be and Nozick has a different approach to it Nozick assumes that everyone possesses the natural rights to life, liberty, and property , including the right to claim as property the fruits or products of one’s labor and the right to dispose of one’s property as one sees fit which I totally agree with since I

From its penning, John Rawls’ theory of Justice, states several foundational notions. First among them is the distinction that his concept of justice is not to give rise to any one specific form of governmental power or structure. It is simply the “principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association.” This crux of Rawls’ argument in the “Original Position” is the moniker of Justice as Fairness, which is rooted directly in the moment a shift

The purpose of this essay is to discuss what ‘Fair Equality of Opportunity’ means and John Rawls view point on this subject. Rawls was a well known philosopher from the USA and arguably the most important political philosopher of the 20th century. Rawls is well known for using the basic structure of society as his subject matter and most famously for his work entitled, A Theory of Justice (1971). Here he explains how the “logical ordering of principles of justice can help to structure and regulate an ideal structure society” (John Rawls, 2003)

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,

Justice applied to a society successfully plays a harmonious balance between the individuals within the society, and the society a a whole. Henceforth a basis of neutrality, objectivity, and impartiality are needed lay the groundwork for developing a just system to govern societies distribution of rights and liberties. However justice also encounters the dilemma of proper distribution of wealth, status, power, and individual needs within the society. Philosophers John Rawls and Robert Nozick both have competing theories that attempt to theorize how an ideal society can combat these intricacies of justice to create a just society for all members that places everyone on the same playing field. While both philosophers Rawls and Nozick offer

In this paper, I will summarize Rawl’s Theory of Justice where he presents an argument of what is needed for true justice in a contemporary society. By examining Rawl’s philosophy, I will agree with his original position, veil of ignorance, and justice as fairness which contains his view of human nature. Then, I will compare and contrase John Lockes’ differing views of human nature to Rawl’s position of human nature and defend possible assertions towards Rawls’ position.

John Rawls argues that a just society must have equal rights for all. He defines a society as an organization of individuals who work together and create a social contract of moral and immoral actions. The goal of any society is to improve the lives of those who inhabit it, contradicting Nozick’s belief that

John Rawls is a world renowned, American political philosopher of the twentieth century. His views on the state of nature, society, and politics were much more distinct from previous philosophers, and his more modern or progressive life experiences can contribute to the separation between him and others, such as Aristotle, Hobbes, or Rousseau. However, he does have certain ideas and point of views that correlate with the views of those that Immanuel Kant expresses, and more specifically Rawls was greatly influenced by Immanuel Kant by his conclusions in moral philosophy and autonomous law. Rawls takes both from historical knowledge and modern experiences to shape his ideas, and he articulates them through one of his most influential books, A Theory of Justice. Through this book he describes the structure or origin of the social-contract tradition in a different view by arguing on behalf of political society through a more liberalism tradition. For example, one of his most distinct views is the role of an original position in the social contract The original position is a model of impartiality is based from the ‘veil of ignorance”, the principle of rational within individuals, and the idea that individuals choose from self-interest, and as such the individuals who derive the social contract will obtain the most just, equal, and fair society in all political, social and economic aspects of society. Although Rawls has various strong objections on his views to the original

Rawls says that when we make decisions, we should choose behind a “veil of ignorance,” which prevents us from knowing anything about who we are. We don’t know our race or ethnicity, our class or gender, our political opinions or religious convictions. We don’t even know our advantages and disadvantages or whether we are healthy or frail, highly educated or a high-school dropout, born to a supportive family or a broken one. If no one had knowledge of any of these things, we would choose from a position of equality. Since no one would have a superior position, the principles we would agree to would be

In what follows, I will attempt to portray the philosophy of John Rawls with regard to the theory of societal justice. My aim is convey Rawls’ conception of justice.

In my discussion of this piece of text I will attempt to present an argument which suggests rational individuals behind a veil of ignorance would assent to the two primary principles of justice found in Rawls’ ‘A theory of justice’. I will also analyse the extract, in particular debating whether various propositions made by Rawls in this extract are true. Initially it is important to situate the extract of discussion. Section 3 of ‘A theory of justice’ is the opening of Rawls’ argument in ‘A theory of justice’, where he introduces his ‘original position’, stating how rational individuals in a hypothetical scenario, behind a veil of ignorance, would agree to two principles of justice which would determine the way social institutions would be organised and how primary goods would be distributed. This section also shows Rawls’ agreement with the idea of ‘hypothetical consent’, an idea which suggests that because free and rational individuals behind a veil of ignorance would agree to Rawls’ two principles of social justice; they hypothetically consent to the principles of the ‘social contract’.

In his book ‘A Theory of Justice’, Rawls was dissatisfied with the traditional philosophical arguments about what makes a social institution just and about what justifies political or social actions and policies. The utilitarian argument holds that societies should pursue the greatest good for the greatest number. This argument has a number of problems, including, especially, that it seems to be consistent with the idea of the tyranny of majorities over minorities. The intuitionist argument holds that humans intuit what is right or wrong by some innate moral sense. This is also problematic because it simply explains away justice by saying that people ‘know it when they see it’ and it fails to deal with the many conflicting human intuitions.

Rawls acts to expand on the social contract making it more applicable to the needs of the least advantaged. One of political philosophy’s goals is for the government to find “some underlying basis of philosophical and moral agreement” such that the citizens agree on its authority . He postulates the current system of government, utilitarianism, is deeply flawed, because it allows for the continued suffering of the most vulnerable in society as long as the majority benefits . Instead Rawls proposes the veil of ignorance take its place. In this thought experiment, men are in the original position, in which “the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities” . He makes two general assumptions about human nature – people are inherently self-interested and they are risk adverse. Thus, behind the veil, a

Levison and Sutton (2001) state that policy is a fluid and “negotiated” (Levison & Sutton, 2001, p. 3) means to govern (p. 3) diverse people and their values; it is a tug of war contrasting , values, desires, wants, and needs. Yet this description of what policy is remains insufficient; policy is not just a means to govern. Means - or methods - to govern implies lots of things besides or in addition to policy: with a big stick, by coalition building, or as a compassionate