Is Redistribution Just?

6. What is the role of the "veil of ignorance" in Rawls' theory of distributive justice?

Rawls theory of justice is a modern alternative to utilitarianism. He believes that justice must be given on the ground of fairness and moral equality of persons. (Shaw, 2016, p.120). His theory comes under social-contract practice. People in the original position choose the basic principles of their society. They should imagine their selves behind the veil of ignorance means have no information about themselves. He thinks any principle decided under these conditions is considered the principle of justice. (Shaw, 2016,

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

How, one might ask, is this initial conception of justice guaranteed to be fair? Rawls accounts for this with his concept of the “veil of ignorance” and “original position.” The “veil of ignorance” is the idea that one puts aside all things that, in a sense, distinguishes one’s self from others (e.g. race, social status, gender, etc.). Once one has “entered” this state they would create rules following their original position (i.e. their selfish nature) thus leading them to set forth a society of equality since they could not reasonably discriminate for the risk of causing themselves

Philosopher John Rawls’ intention is to let people know and understand the concept of justice as fairness. Many think of justice and fairness as the same concept, but Rawls differentiate them into specific words. Just signifies that there is an unbiased and neutral set of rules that everyone originally approves of since the beginning. Rawls defines fairness as being equivalent, meaning people should not be defined on their gender, hair color, height, etc. or have any labels placed. Based on his writing about the veil of ignorance, Rawls would not agree with Peter Singer’s idea that donating the money that people use to buy unnecessary items is the same concept as letting someone who is in need of help and money die along with the idea of John

Rawls theory of justice is a modern alternative to utilitarianism. He believes that justice must be given on the ground of fairness and moral equality of persons. (Shaw, 2016, p.120). His theory comes under social-contract practice. People in the original position choose the basic principles of their society. They should imagine their selves behind the veil of ignorance, means have no information about themselves. He thinks any principle decided under these conditions is considered the principle of justice. (Shaw, 2016,

Rawls believes that in a situation where a society is established of people who are self-interested, rational, and equal, the rules of justice are established by what is mutually acceptable and agreed upon by all the people. This scenario of negotiating the laws of that society that will be commonly agreed upon and beneficial to

In my understanding John Rawls bases his theory on the veil of ignorance. It’s an imaginative situation that puts all rational people together and lets them make decisions on the justice structure of society without being effected by power or any other influences coming from other

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

Rawls holds that an individual cannot always agree on a contract before entering a society, some are simply born in them and would then have no say over their obligated fate. Instead of Locke’s contract theory, Rawls suggests the idea of the veil of ignorance which ensures that justice will prevail. The contract, suggested by Rawls, is created in a hypothetical situation where individuals gather together in representation of all who have and will live. These individuals have not recollection of divisions such as status, class, resources, abilities, goals, or even their own psychology. This memory swipe or veil of ignorance ensures the exclusion of bias and the pursuit of personal gain. In the final agreement, all have the same views and opinions because everything that separates one individual from another has been washed away fro the sake of the common good for all

Income redistribution refers to the concept of transferring income from the wealthy individuals to the less wealthy individuals through social mechanisms such as monetary policies, charity, welfare, land reforms, and taxation among others. Income redistribution affects the entire economy rather than selected groups of individuals. The concept of income redistribution emanates from the existence of income inequalities within an economy. Income inequality depicts a gap between the highest and the lowest income earners in an economy (Tullock 13). Income inequality is sometimes considered appropriate in societies since it acts as an incentive in free market economies, whereby in the absence of inequality, elements of economic stagnation and lack of enterprise would emerge. Conversely, income inequality is criticized on the basis of introducing contributing towards the development of key problems in the society, including progression of poverty levels. This paper seeks to explore the concept of income redistribution and its key pros and cons.

Rawls claims that if people did not know their place in society they would follow through with his theory and eradicate all so called injustices that lead to an uneven distribution of wealth. Human beings will always pick the option, which allows them to have to largest possible gains, not one where everyone is on an even playing field. Beings would not place themselves in the lowest of the low; they wouldn’t assume themselves to be “those in need”. Competition seems to be completely ignored by Rawls, we are driven by

There are many different approaches to the justice of distributions in societies and there are arguments that can be made to support each of them. Three types of approaches are distribution justice based on a distributive approach that was introduced by John Rawls, emergent which was advocated by Robert Nozick and a market democratic hybrid supported by Tomasi. This paper will illustrate the basic premise of each of these approaches and the impacts that they have on the economics of a society. After briefly explaining these three approaches to just distribution I will demonstrate why Tomasi 's "Free Market Fairness", or the democratic hybrid approach, is the most logical and productive way to achieve justice of distributions while having a