Justice, And Nozick's Utilitarian Theory 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.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory according to which an action is right if and only if it conforms to the principle of utility. An action conforms to the principle of utility if and only if its performance will be more productive of pleasure or happiness, or more preventive of pain and happiness, than any alternative. The rightness of an action entirely depends on the value of its consequences, this is why the theory is described as consequentialist. The “separateness of persons” is an objection against utilitarianism stating that the theory fails to recognize people as distinct individuals. It rejects the allowance of one person’s loss to be offset by another person’s gain, and it is only the net sum total that ultimately matters. Recognition of the “separateness of persons” is needed to put constraints on such trade offs. In this essay I will lay out the theory of utilitarianism and explain the “separateness of persons” objection presented by John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Ultimately I do think they present a successful argument, since utilitarianism is detached from individuals it can lead to grotesquely immoral consequences when put into practice.

Reconnecting this interpretation of justice to distribution purely means that the virtue of justice, being concerned with the liberty, rights, and fairness of citizen 's in a society, must consider how the economic opportunities and social conditions affect the citizens in that society. While there may be cases of perceived inequality among the citizens of the just society, those inequalities might be acceptable if certain principles of justice insured the fairness of liberty and rights inherent in justice as the first virtue. Further, any inequalities in authority and wealth could be just, only on the condition that they benefit all citizens. In

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,

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.

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.

Rawls also formulated the two principles of justice to emphasize ideas of justice and fairness. The first principle states that each person has validated a claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal fundamental liberties which is compatible with a similar liberty for others. The basic freedoms of citizens are embodied in the political constitution. As such, citizens have the liberty to vote and run for office, liberty of conscience, freedom of speech and assembly, autonomy from arbitrary arrest and freedom of personal property. Rawls elaborates that this principle controls protection of an identical set of basic civic liberties. Rawls also relates his description of social basic goods to a specific perception of the individual as liberal and equal and as holding certain capacities and interests. This assures the members of the society that they will have all the tools necessary for a good life. Rawls himself acknowledges that this principle

In this essay I will assess and evaluate Mill’s concept of justice through the principles of utility. I will argue to defend Mill’s attempt to reconcile justice with the utilitarian principles he has explained by first summarizing these concepts and by proving utility.

Distributive justice refers to what society or a larger group owes its individual members in proportion to the individual’s needs, contribution and responsibility, the resources available to society or the organization, and society’s or the organization’s responsibility to the common good. In health care, distributive justice requires that everyone receive equitable access to basic healthcare necessary for living (uco.edu. Legal and Ethical Issues in Healthcare/Ethical

The first principle of John Rawls’s ‘Theory of Justice’ states that “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a

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).

Basic liberties included things such as freedom of speech and due process of law. He specifically pointed out that the right to own a “means of production” or business and the right to wealth were not a basic liberty. Rawls ' second principle dealt with the issue of equality and keeping things fair amongst individuals in the society. He admitted that a society could not exist without inequalities among the people due to individual characteristics such as a person 's drive or motivation, social class and luck. To adjust to these uncontrollable facts Rawls second principle proclaimed, “Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: “first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and

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.