John Rawls Maximise The Position Of The Worst-Off In Society?

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

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

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 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.

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

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.

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

Contractarian Ethics, also known as the Theory of Justice, explores the topic of the ideas of ethics of fairness. In the textbook John Rawls, who is credited with developing this theory, states that a person has to take what is referred to as an ‘original position’ to make a completely fair judgment call where ethical questions are concerned. Like the assignment instructions mentioned several times, this original position is taken through a ‘veil of ignorance’. This term in itself is one that can initially cause some confusion when attempting to understand the idea of contractarian ethics.

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 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.

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