John Rawls Welfare Liberalism

We begin with John Rawls’s conception of justice. He has two principles of justice; they are the principle of basic liberties, the second principle has two parts: the principle of fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle. According to Cohen (2003), the principle of basic liberty says that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive system of liberties of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of

There are two principles in Justice as Fairness according to Rawls. The first principle emphasizes on the importance of equal basic rights and liberties, while the second presents conditions for social and economic inequalities to be accepted that they must be for the greatest benefits of the least-advantaged people. The equal basic liberties are embodied in the political constitution with basic political liberties such as freedom of association, speech, election, rights to vote and to be treated in accordance with the rule of law, etc for all citizens equally (Rawls 1999). He argued that equal political liberties have the priority. The first principle need to be achieved before the second because it is the fulfillment of political liberties that will ensure the achievement of social and economic justice in a just

Equality, fairness, and equal distribution are concepts that are embedded in social justice. Individuals living in harmony for mutual benefit living in a state of society are set out by social contract. This paper will firstly show, the background of the philosophy of social justice. Then it will focus on John Rawls Theory of Justice. Secondly, It addresses the stages of the Theory of Justice, It then historical nature of social justice in conjunction with western philosophy. Lastly it will look at the diversity of philosophical and ethical thought.

In Distributive Justice, Robert Nozick aims to clarify the processes of distribution that can be reasonably upheld in a free society. To do so, he examines the origins of how people legitimately come to own things and applies the least intrusive set of guidelines that can be doled out in order to guarantee the most justice possible, while also respecting individual liberty. Nozick provides the Entitlement Theory, which specifies that so long as there is justice in the acquisition and transfer of holdings (things one owns), there is no injustice or infringement upon liberties of others and the parties involved are entitled their holdings. In the event there is an injustice committed, he provides the third topic of “ the rectification of injustice in holdings.” Establishing how individuals may legitimately acquire holdings is crucial to a discussion on the liberty and rights of individuals in a free, yet cooperative society. In order to further clarify how individuals originally come to own things in society, Distributive Justice later analyzes John Locke’s Theory of Acquisition. A diminishing number of unowned resources as well as the inherent problems in a free market convolute the issue.

Robert Nozick, an American philosopher, also came up with his own three sets of rule of justice, which sort of go against what John Rawls argues. Nozick in his book “Anarchy, state and Utopia” argues about distribution of property and states justice in three ideas, which are justice in acquisition, justice in transfer, and rectification of injustice. Justice in acquisition is finding a place, property or object and calming your rights over it before anyone else does. Justice in transfer is how you got a certain property or object by an exchange with another person. Rectification of injustice is giving someone back what he or she deserves in case you have claimed it when it was not yours. Nozick’s theory of justice claims that whether a distribution is just or not, it depends entirely on how it came about. The maximin principle states that “to rank alternatives by their worst possible outcomes; we are to adopt the alternative the worst outcome of which is

The difference in this property idea forms, as Rawls states that social and economic differences must meet two requirements to be just. Positions that bring grater benefit and advantage should be open to all, the opportunity or chance of getting a certain job, house or car should be equal to all people. This is where his theory contradicts Nozick. According to Nozick all people entitled to their property as long as the have not violated any Lockean rights and that people can do anything they want with their property or advantages as long as its justified. Rawls argues that this will only favor rich people, as the opportunities for them to gain more properties or advantages are much higher than for those with no property. Property and wealth gives people power, which maximizes the gap between the rich and the poor.

John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice discusses the varying components needed to choose a fair principle of justice for a democratic society. In the third chapter, Rawls explains the few principles of distributive justice that exist and the one he is in favour of. The principle that he promotes is called the difference principle, which he believes would be chosen by the people within the original position. While Rawls gives some good reasons, I find the egalitarian principle would be chosen by the parties. In this paper, I will first define the original position and the conditions in which the members are under. Next, I will briefly define the difference principle and the other two principles of distributive justice. Finally, I will conclude that the egalitarian principle would be the most likely choice of the individuals in the original position.

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.

In Chapter 6, Sandel introduces to us an American philosopher by the name of John Rawls. According to Rawls, Sandel says, the way to think about justice “is to ask what principles we would agree to in an initial situation of inequality” (pg. 140). He calls this state of inequality a “veil of ignorance” which prevents people from knowing anything about their wealth, income, social status, racial identification, religious convictions, gender, ethnicity etc. In this state, Rawls says, the principles people would agree to would be just. Under these conditions, Rawls reasons, people would not choose utilitarianism- fearing they might be part of the minority. They would also not choose principles like libertarianism, feudalism. Rawls maintains that two principles will be chosen: basic liberties, and social and economic equality. A major argument that arises from this idea is whether consent to a contract “creates an obligation on its own, or is element of benefit or reliance also required” (pg. 144). Sandel says contracts realize two ideals: autonomy and reciprocity. Contracts represent autonomy; the “obligations [contracts] create carry weight because they are self imposed, and reciprocity; the “obligation to fulfill [a contract] arises from the obligation to repay others for the benefits they provide us” (pg. 144, 145). If put in a situation such as the veil of ignorance, most people would, Rawls suggests, adopt the “difference principle”:

Rawls invites us to imagine ourselves preparing to create our society and that we are unaware of the person we will become and the place we will hold in that society. He calls this the 'original position ' and our lack of knowledge a 'veil of ignorance ' (Kymlicka 2002; pp. 62-63). Importantly he claims that from such a position we would agree upon two rules – that we all have the same basic rights and liberties and that where inequities exist they are to be to the benefit of the least advantaged (Kymlicka 2002, p. 56; Rawls 1971, p. 52). Nozick on the other hand, tells us that a just society consists of the following three rules: if you obtained something justly then you are entitled to keep it, if you give your entitlement to someone else voluntarily then they are now entitled to it and there is no other just claim to that entitlement (Nozick 2013, p. 100).

The purpose of this essay is to discuss what ‘Fair Equality of Opportunity’ means and John Rawls view point on this subject. Rawls was a well known philosopher from the USA and arguably the most important political philosopher of the 20th century. Rawls is well known for using the basic structure of society as his subject matter and most famously for his work entitled, A Theory of Justice (1971). Here he explains how the “logical ordering of principles of justice can help to structure and regulate an ideal structure society” (John Rawls, 2003)

Rawls and Nozick both address fundamental political, economic and social questions and essentially shape the contemporary debate on justice, liberty and equality. Having similar starting points, they develop opposite arguments about the welfare state. TJ is concerned with the basic societal rules, whereas ASU focuses on how individuals inter- act (Meadowcroft, 2011: 191). Both reject utilitarianism because of the separateness of people (Rawls, 1999: 20; Nozick, 1974: 33): “Utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons” (Rawls, 1999:

(1) This paper poses the thesis that, from a Rawlsian perspective, justice in our modern day society is impossible, given simply the disparity between the ultra-rich and the extremely poor. (2) It further explores the problem of inequality in the United States. (3) It then analyzes Rawls’ conception of justice as fairness. (4) And finally, it assesses the prospect and possibility of justice as fairness in the real world. ===================

Political philosopher John Rawls believed that in order for society to function properly, there needs to be a social contract, which defines ‘justice as fairness’. Rawls believed that the social contract be created from an original position in which everyone decides on the rules for society behind a veil of ignorance. In this essay, it will be argued that the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. First, the essay will describe what the veil of ignorance is. Secondly, it will look at what Rawls means by the original position. Thirdly, it will look at why the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. Finally, the essay will present a criticism to the veil of ignorance and the original

With a limited availability of wealth and resources, all societies are posed with a common dilemma: how ought these goods be distributed among members of the community in a way that is just? In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls, an influential political philosopher of the 20th century, attempts to provide a solution to this dilemma by presenting a hypothetical situation, known as the Original Position, in which multiple parties determine the principles that will constitute the basic structure of the society they will live in. In order to ensure that the party members make their choices impartially