Environmental Ethics

If society were in agreement, Rawls asks, what kind of arrangement would everyone agree to? He states that the contract is a purely hypothetical one: If no one knew what place he or she would have in society? Then what sort of society would they choose? He argued in a fair society there would be justice based on the theory that justice is tied to fairness; politically he thought this to be a conceivable notion. Up until this everyone wanted to maximise their position based on how much wealth they could obtain. There was no theory of justice as fairness before this... The biggest property class at that time was slavery; the major concerns for the people were how to protect their property and to guard against the abolishment of slavery. Under the constitutional convention people already knew what position they were entering into to. He called this the original position; Rawls maintains that the choice would be for a social structure that would best benefit the unknowing chooser if she or he happened to end up in the least desirable position... After considering the main characteristics of justice as fairness Rawls looks at the principles of justice. He identifies two principles: One, that each person should have equal rights, two, that inequalities should be arranged so that they would be to everyone’s advantage and arranged so that nobody would be denied access from

There are two principles in Justice as Fairness according to Rawls. The first principle emphasizes on the importance of equal basic rights and liberties, while the second presents conditions for social and economic inequalities to be accepted that they must be for the greatest benefits of the least-advantaged people. The equal basic liberties are embodied in the political constitution with basic political liberties such as freedom of association, speech, election, rights to vote and to be treated in accordance with the rule of law, etc for all citizens equally (Rawls 1999). He argued that equal political liberties have the priority. The first principle need to be achieved before the second because it is the fulfillment of political liberties that will ensure the achievement of social and economic justice in a just

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 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.

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

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

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

To achieve a just society, Rawls believes in two principles. The first principle states that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. The second principle is that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a)reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and b) attached to positions and offices open to all (Rawls, 60).

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

Rawls develops the idea of an “original position” as a conception point and a justification for this theory of distributive justice. In this original position, an individual is standing behind a veil of ignorance which blocks out social class, economic class, sexuality or natural talents. In this place, an individual is in the position to make the most basic moral decisions because they face no external bias. If one knows no place in society, a rational person will make decisions that help those who are worse off. In the original position, the principles of justice would be agreed to by any rational human. This position supports the idea that while each person might have a different background, they should have a fair chance to pursue goals and the equality of opportunity despite these

John Rawls discusses the original position in his book A Theory of Justice. “The Original Position and Justification” is a chapter where Rawls persuades his readers into taking the original position seriously. The original position is a position where people are equal and are rational in order to make principles that they live by fair. However, there is a problem with rational decisions being biased, where people will choose principles to benefit themselves. Therefore, the veil of ignorance will restrict a person’s knowledge about social status, intelligence, gender, race, ethnicity, and temperament. This will then define principles of justice that will not be advantage or a disadvantage to anyone in a society. Keeping this in mind, the purpose of this essay is to explain the reasons Rawls gives to favor the original position. I will then oppose to Rawls argument with two of my own reasons about the veil of ignorance not being realistic and the equal of human beings not being plausible.

Thus, we return to the first order intellectual tool: principles of justice. There are many possible principles of justice; however Rawls tests the following two principles of justice in hopes which are theoretically capable of achieving institutional reform. The first principle of justice is that “each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties” (5). Moreover, this is the translating of rights into real possibilities to guarantee that one really does have freedom. And this is a fair and concrete value which society does, in theory, guarantees. The second principle of justice is that “social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society,” (6). Thus, there is no exclusion of any group.

Explain how our need to create worldviews is related to our strangeness. Explain it in terms of the insights we have developed in class regarding strangeness. Explain the Hindu and Modern worldviews, and explain how the Christian worldview affects the Modern worldview. The explanations for the worldviews contribute to our strangeness, how they affect our view of nature, and how they affect the way we act toward nature.

Environmental ethics can be formally defined in many sources as the study of human interaction with nature. In a business sense, however, environmental ethics is concerned with the business’ duty or responsibility to protect our overall environment. Our society is beginning to become more involved with the environmental movement. Because of this, people are more concerned with the companies and businesses that they support in regards to their concern towards our environment. Some argue that businesses should be attempting to protect our environment over and above what is required by United States Law. Doesn 't it seem the only ‘ethical’ thing to do? In this paper I will elaborate about environmental compliance obligations, businesses and environmental ethics movements, as well as what companies have been trying to do to become more ethical when it comes to our environment that goes above and beyond the law. The survival and growth of ‘green businesses’ in the U.S. is increasingly large.