Deutsch, Rawls's Theory 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.

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.

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.

As one can see, mass incarceration of African Americans is clearly an injustice that needs to be acknowledged and resolved. In my Social and Economic Justice course, several theorists were discussed about what they considered justice and their methods to reach it. In the following paragraphs, I examine Rawls’, Nozick’s, and Mill’s theories in context with the mass incarceration of African American and explain why their proposed solutions would not be applicable to this injustice. Rawls’ theory consists of imagining oneself in what he calls the Original Position, in which we are all self-interested rational people that stand behind the “Veil of Ignorance. By this, it means that people are motivated to select, in an informed and enlightened way whatever seems most beneficial for themselves. However, due to the Veil of Ignorance we do not know certain things such as our race, age, sex, social class, or physical/mental disabilities; we just are aware of the different scenarios that humans could possible face and the facts of humanity. Rawls believes that by having self-interested rational individuals, masked by the Veil of Ignorance, it would create a fair procedure in which fair principles would be chosen in order to govern the world. With this in mind, Rawls argues that these individuals would choose two principles, Principle of Equal Liberty and Difference Principle, to structure society in the real world. The Principle of Equal Liberty states that each person has an equal

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)

The conventional accounts of Justice normally begin by stating a fundamental rule of Aristotle – Justice is to treat equals equally and unequals unequally, and that unequal treatment should be in proportion to the inequality. In everyday life though, justice is seen as an attribute of law, while all laws are not necessarily just. Many great socio- political movements of the world have focused from time to time on unjust laws eg Apartheid laws in South Africa and Caste laws in India. Impartiality and fairness are understood to be the two aspects of justice. But it would be misleading to suggest that Justice refers solely to the fair application of a rule.

John Rawls was an American political and moral philosopher. Rawls attempts to determine the principles of social justice. In this essay, I will elucidate John Rawls’ views on forming a social contract, the counter-arguments against Rawls’ theory and finally the state of debate on the counter-arguments. John Rawls set out on his discussion on justice and fairness in his book A Theory of Justice 1971. Rawls theory describes a society with free citizens holding equal basic rights regardless of the social status (poor or rich). Each society has its way of attempting to bring about equality in its political and economic systems. The tenets of distributive justice, therefore, act as an ethical guide to the

Social justice is a long debated subject that continues to prove controversial and divisive all over the world. Opinions on what constitutes social justice vary on a continuum from more conservative opinions which note individual responsibility to a more liberal stance which promotes a moral responsibility to support social equality (Mapp, 2008). Despite the varying opinions of what establishes social justice, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) serves as the first step in promoting social justice by outlining the basic rights that should be afforded to humanity (United Nations, n.d.). More specifically, Article 22 of the UDHR states that all people should have access to social security protection that works to provide essential needs, provisions for preserving dignity, and freedom to pursue personal interest (United Nations, n.d.). In spite of the established declaration, social justice remains unavailable for too many people. Worldwide, the lack of social protection leads to 1.4 billion people struggling to meet their essential needs due to lack of access to resources which promote a decent standard of living. Another 100 million fall into poverty due to unforeseen complications (GIPSPSI, 2011). Therefore, there is a crucial need to recognize social protection as a human right in order to guarantee equal access to basic services and equal opportunity to all of humankind.

One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its

The debate between Rawls and Nozick is one that can still be seen today. The solution to the problem depends on whether a person is a libertarian or a liberal. Though Rawls makes a compelling argument, Nozick’s words cannot be ignored. Rawls argument claims that justice should be fair and this fairness is achieved by strong government restraints. Rawls believes that justice should be able to be achieved by all, not only the privileged. Nozick claims that justice comes from a minimal state, one where people can achieve justice through their natural rights. Justice is redistributive; it is not solely in the hands of one person. There is a clear debate and the obvious choice is Nozick solely based on the fact that Rawls’ theory is an impractical one. In order for Rawls theory to be put into effect there needs to be no self-interest. This is not the case with human nature; society is naturally inclined to protect the self.

Inequality and inefficiency are universal issues plaguing society that countless economists have attempted to understand and address. Distinguished economists such as John Rawls, Amartya Sen, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman have developed their own theories of to achieve distributive justice, or a fair allocation of resources for all members of society. In Rawls’ justice as fairness and Sen’s capability theory, the economists come closest to achieving plans of distributive justice that retain the output-promoting effects of compensating differentials and recognizing the costs of Okun’s leaky bucket, but a plan that retains Rawls’ social contract and Sen’s capability focus would come closest to achieving justice.

The following section of this study will dissect the two opposing tax systems and analyze them through the lenses of two major ethical theories, Universalism, and Rawls’ Distributive Justice Theory. Both theories will discuss the three ethical questions presented in the beginning of this paper and present which theory most closely aligns to the principles of each theory.

Equality stands side by side with no contingencies. To be truly equal there has to be no disadvantages. A society cannot have equality when arbitrary hinders its growth. John Rawls a philosopher of egalitarianism believes that an equal society is essential to its productivity. It is not fair for moral Arbitrariness to have superiority over the less fortunate in justice and the free market. There should be opportunities given to start at the same starting point regardless of status quo. Everyone has an opinion on equality which fairly is their own. An opinion is just an opinion base on what the individual believe is right by how they feel. What if you could strip away outside inferences, opinions and see equality for what it is. The

Abstract: Which political and juridical foundation can justify the transit from the Western, particular, to the universal? John Rawls tries to answer this question in his article, "The Law of Peoples," proposing a kind of contract or agreement. A first agreement should be attained among liberal-democratic societies on a few political and social issues such as human rights. Then this agreement can be widened to non-liberal/democratic but well organized hierarchical societies or those that satisfy the requisites of being peaceful, of having a reasonably well organized legal system, of admitting a measure of freedom-political and religious-and of admitting the right of emigration. These two