John Rawls Principles Of Justice

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.

“What is justice?” This is a question that men have struggled with answering for centuries. Justice should be defined for the sake of all people, especially by rulers who attempt to make fair laws so that their society functions in an orderly fashion. In Book 1 of The Republic, Plato attempts to define exactly what justice is. To help determine this definition, he speaks through the philosopher protagonist of Socrates. Justice is first brought up in The Republic during Socrates’ trip to Piraeus. While traveling Socrates ends up gathering with his interlocutors and together, they talk about justice and how one would define it. Socrates debates with the men about the definition of justice and is presented with a definition of

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

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 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

Plato aims to give an account of the ethical life. Themes for example knowledge, the well-ordered life, and wisdom are connected into the discussion of ethical life, however, the principle of justice and the organization of the good life is the central topic of Plato's theories. Today we associate justice with the successful implementation and execution of political law. To the Ancient Greek's justice was used to describe the proper and correct method of living. Justice is harmony and was believed it could be achieved through learning. Plato first established that justice is good, and part of the good life in Book I. Plato listens to other philosophers theories and argues that justice is an excellence of character. The role that justice plays is to improve human nature. In addition to other things, justice is a form of goodness that cannot contribute in any activity that attempts to harm one's character.

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

Plato and Aristotle, arguably the most important philosophers of their time, both made attempts to define justice. Being that Aristotle was a student of Plato, their ideas share many similarities. Both viewed justice as the harmonious interaction of people in a society. However, Plato defined his ideal of justice with more usage of metaphysics, invoking his Form of the Good, while Aristotle took a more practical approach, speaking in terms of money and balance. Although Aristotle's ideal of justice may seem superior, upon further inspection, Plato's ideal of justice is the stronger.

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

Using his argument of a macrocosm reflecting a microcosm Plato was able to define the form of justice. Plato’s definition of justice can be put in a different manner. He believes that justice is a policy of non-interference. Each element of the whole, whether it is in the city or the individual, functions in its own aspect to benefit the whole, fulfilling its own purpose. Justice occurs when the elements of the whole are acting in accord with one another.

“Justice is the art that gives each man what is good for his soul”. This statement is implies that justice is goodness and doing what’s right. This also implies that being a good person and doing good actions will in turn benefit the people by improving their Lives. Justice is good because it sets a standard of goodness that people in society would have to uphold and follow. Therefore this would lead to an environment of positivity and goodness for individuals. The Mariam-Webster dictionary gives the world one definition that states “Justice is the maintenance and administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of confliction claims”. However According to book one of The Republic by Plato, Justice is conveyed as a very complex topic that cannot be defined by a single definition. The topic of justice is discussed and broken down by Socrates, who asks the question “what is justice?” , he seeks out a definition from the company around him and through different given definitions of Justice, Socrates proves that there is no one definition for justice because there are many contradictions and exceptions that have to be considered in certain situations. In this essay I will discuss how justice relates to goodness and how it can be “the art that gives each man what is good for his soul” by using the Socrates’ discussion on the various definitions of justice from book one in The Republic by Plato.

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.

Justice in philosophy is one of the most important political and moral concepts. The word justice comes from the Latin word jus, which means right or law. English Dictionaries defines it as one who typically does what is morally right as well as offering the word “fair” as a synonym. But philosophers get beyond etymology and what the dictionary definitions are and look deeper into it. For example, the nature of justice is both a moral virtue of character and a quality needed for political society, as well as knowing how it applies to social and ethical decision making. The question to answer is how Plato and Rawls theories were used for philosophical conceptions of justice. These are known to be the greatest theories of ancient Greece. Not only their theories of justice will be explained, but also how Plato and Rawls apply their own theories to controversial social issues like civil disobedience, punishment, equal opportunity for women, property rights, and international relations.

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