Epistemology Vs Social Contract Theory

Rawls’ principles of justice also take individual wellbeing into account. The competing theory of the day – utilitarianism, summarized in the slogan ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’, did not consider the good of individuals in society. Rawls’ theory, however, caters not only to individuals, but also to minorities who might suffer at the hands of utilitarianism. A Utilitarian might argue that Rawls’ assured individual liberties are not conducive to the betterment of society as a whole, in that individual welfare may sometimes conflict with communal welfare. This argument is somewhat negated on consideration of the annulment of disparities, which is not only beneficial to individuals, who could potentially possess some handicap either socially, economically or physically, but also to society, as it is the meritorious individuals who induce economic and social growth. Relative wealth, health and social position are mitigated in the interests of fairness. It stands to reason that the society in question will prosper from a system of formal equality, as it encourages excellence within the community. It also stimulates competition – rational individuals will naturally want more primary goods for themselves , and will be willing to compete for these. This is vital to a healthy economy because it prevents stagnating monopolization by individuals.

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

A Critical Analysis of The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap

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

Despite beliefs to the contrary, the increasing disparity in real wealth between white and black Americans during the past half century shows that the economic system is unjust. Considering factors such as less intergenerational inheritance, higher unemployment and lower incomes serve as key components in economic disparity. Disparity can be viewed as a systematic design to keep a specific group of people continually oppressed through a mixture of inequality, injustice and power. When there is an inequality that is also an injustice (Wright, 2009).

I agree with the second article. The article is called “Three Cheers for Income Inequality” and is written by Richard A. Epstein. “Three Cheers for Income Inequality” is about reducing income inequality through tax policies. In order to do so, Richard Epstein discussed giving wealth to the lower class citizens. Richard Epstein says that taking from the wealthy would help and be more beneficial to those who do not have as much. This would make the income line more equal. The money would come through the taxes. (260).

First this essay will demonstrate how Rawls’s theory will affect the society and its structure in terms of basic social institutions, wealth distribution and major economic limits and opportunities. Then, the essay will demonstrate the same for Nozick’s theory on distributive justice. I will then describe, in which society I would prefer to live in and why.

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

Furthermore, they have no concept of social standing or economic standing. The individuals are just capable of reasoning and possess the goal of creating a just society (Rawls 1971, 17). The purpose of the veil is to allow those in the original position to agree on rules pertaining to their own mutual interests. Rawls thinks that behind the veil of ignorance, free of bias with rational thought, the individuals would agree to a society governed by his two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 53). Individuals would agree to these principles because it would be the only way to ensure a fair initial status quo in society (Rawls 1971, 53). This is important because it allows for justified inequalities later that will be regulated instead of unjust inequalities. No one would want to make things unequal from the start because they have no way of knowing their actual place in society behind the veil (Rawls 1971, 11). For example, if someone suggested that all UCR students get free tuition at the cost of students at other universities footing the bill, it would be within the individuals best interest to disagree because he has no way of knowing if he is a UCR student in the society or one of the other university students that now have to pay more. The idea of the original position is that a just society would be fair and equal, and individuals behind the veil of ignorance would agree on Rawls’ two principles of justice to make it so.

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

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.

John Rawls, who is an American political philosopher, urges for a heightened idea of the social contract in his book “A Theory of Justice” when he states “the guiding idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interest would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association. These principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of

The cry for equality of opportunity for the underprivileged and weaker sections of the society is being increasingly heard these days and this demonstrates the importance of notion of distributive justice in modern consciousness. Distributive justice embraces "the whole economic dimension of social justice, the entire question of proper distribution of goods and services within thesociety". It demands equality in the distribution or allotment of advantages or burdens. The advantages or burdens which are to be distributed are of numerous kinds such as wages, taxes, property, punishments, individual or social performances or rights and duties as allocated and apportioned by the legal system. Distributive justice aims to strike a balance in the socio-economic structure of the society to bring equipoise between the conflicting desires, interests and claims of the individual citizens. Justice P.N. Bhagwati succinctly explains distributive justice as under:-

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.