What does justice mean and what role should the government play in maintaining it? Does it mean to redistribute wealth to help those who are less fortunate or does it mean allowing individuals to freely give to those who are poor? This question has been debated for a long time and will still be debated for years to come. This paper will look at the writings of two philosophers, John Rawls and Robert Nozick, and compare and contrast their beliefs on what that question means and whether or not one theory is more beneficial to society in the long run.
Throughout history there has always been a dilemma between freedom and equality. Some people think they are one in the same but there are differences. Freedom is the ability of individuals to
…show more content…
1371). Rawls realized that people would compare themselves to others based on their class or social status. This is why people in society should not know their place so they would be more willing to help those who are poor in society. He goes on to say that, “the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain” (Kramnick, 2009, pg. 1371). Rawls believed people would give consent to enter into a sort of social contract when they enter into society.
He believed there are two principles of justice. The first principle is that “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others” (Kramnick, 2009, pg. 1374). This means that all people have the basic human rights which results in the equal rights of all people. The second principle is that “social and economic inequalities” should be for the advantage of everyone and all positions and offices need to be open to all (Kramnick, 2009, pg. 1374). Rawls argued that if inequalities were to take place it should be for the advantage of everyone in society.
The first principle guarantees such individual liberties as the right to vote and run for office as well as freedom of speech, and freedom of thought. The second principle ensures that although “the distribution of wealth and income need not be
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
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,
In this hypothetical situation he explained that “although all act out of self-interest, no one will be able to “stack the deck” by fashioning rules that promotes his or hers personal advantage, because no one would know what is his or hers personal advantage” (Ball et al, 2004. pg. 79). As such the vail in itself produced a form of neutrality, forcing the individual into a social contract agreement. Rawl’s concluded that through reason they arrived at two essential principles in order to guide their society. The first principle is justice, meaning everyone has equal freedom and the second principle is equal opportunities for all. He claims that in a just society nothing should be subject to any political or social bargaining.
John Rawls was the second most important political thinker of his time. His main contribution to the idea of a civil society is his theory of justice. Rawls believed in “social primary goods” which included rights,
John Rawls a political theorist engages in various political theories and arguments that contradict, support, and scrutinizes others theories made by other notable political theorist. Rawls contemplates usage of theories such as The Theory of Justice, Veil of Ignorance and Nozick’s Entitlement Theory which will be discussed within this analysis for their relation to society and what benefits or aliments they hold if any on society’s effective function.
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.
John Rawls was an America philosopher whose idea was to develop an experiment for individuals to seek a fair notion of justice. Rawls experiment was a hypothetical one that engaged the individual to look at society and fairness from another perceptive. Individuals were to use their imagination and pretend that they were born into different lives, for example, if their mother was a single parent that worked two jobs just to put food on the table vs. the lavish life style one lives today. Society isn’t just, but if the individuals didn’t know their position or their background it could eliminate discrimination and give rise for equal opportunity for all. Rawls believed in the notion of the social contract theory, if everyone was in agreement they could form a sustainable society. Rawls proposed the government could possibly work for everyone, under these pretenses. Rawls had two key principles which focused on
Chapter seven of Justice as Fairness, by John Rawls, was an important part of explaining some concepts of Rawls’s political philosophy. Justice as Fairness, as a whole, was written with the aim of addressing society. In writing Justice as Fairness, and explaining the importance of political philosophy, Rawls’s desire was to settle the problem of order and to specify principles that would create a just and reasonable society (Rawls 3). The original position is exactly that; it is to be used as a device from which fair agreement between free and equal persons can be reached (Rawls 15). The original position is the solution. It is a solution to the unfair bargaining advantages, like political or economic
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).
Communitarian critics of Rawls have argued that his A Theory of Justice provides an inadequate account of individuals in the original position. Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argues that Rawls' conception of the person divorces any constitutive attachments that persons might have to their ends. Hence, Sandel asserts that Rawls privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals at the expense of communal interests. I do not find Sandel's specific criticisms to be an accurate critique of what Rawls is doing in A Theory of Justice. However, this does not mean the more general thrust of the communitarian analysis of Rawls' conception of the person must be abandoned. By picking up the pieces
John Rawls was an America philosopher whose idea was to develop an experiment for individuals to seek a fair notion of justice. Rawls experiment was a hypothetical one that engaged the individual to look at society and fairness from another perceptive. Individuals were to use their imagination and pretend that they were born into different lives, for example, if their mother was a single parent that worked two jobs just to put food on the table vs. the lavish life style one lives today. Society isn’t just, but if the individuals didn’t know their position or their background it could eliminate discrimination and give rise for equal opportunity for all. Rawls believed in the notion of the social contract theory, if everyone was in agreement they could form a sustainable society. Rawls proposed the government could possibly work for everyone, under these pretenses. Rawls had two key principles which focused on basic equality and liberty for each individual and fair education and employment positions.
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.
Fundamentally, Rawls aims to present a conception of justice that serves the social contract theory more generally and abstractly than such social contract theories provided by Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. In contrast to Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, Rawls’ conception of justice does not provide a specific layout for the intricacies and structure of each social institution. His abstract concept of justness, however, provides the foundation from which a just institution must derive.
In 1971 American philosopher John Rawls wrote his perhaps most famous piece of work named ‘A Theory of Justice’, which is to this day believed to be one of the most significant pieces of text in the field of political philosophy. In his publication, John Rawls introduces the eminent Original Position, in which everyone is impartially situated as equal, and the Principles of Justice, directed at undertaking the competing claims for liberty and fairness in the present-day society. Throughout his work, Rawls endeavours to find a theory which could govern the dissemination of goods and opportunities in society in a most fair and equal method.