Nozick 's Theory Of Equality And Equality

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.

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

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

He has said that the right to property is the most important thing to a libertarian. He argued that in order to enact his principles, would require a massive amount of right violations. Of course Rawls didn’t agree. He said what is the right to property? What kind of right is it referring to? Is this going to be a right given by authority or a legal right. However Nozick is speaking out about basic human rights. Rawls neglects to properly account for justice within families. I also see some strong flaws with his properties because for his second principle he states that all inequalities are allowed if two conditions are met and this is mostly if the inequality benefits everyone. But just as I stated in the beginning "if I can be pretty sure that I won't get caught and punished that it is rational for me to break the contract." If an act is made and breaks the contract then not both parties are ever going to

We live in a society that holds equality as a paramount value. Most, if not all, of the Western World generally believes in equality for its citizens, not as a privilege but as a fundamental right, and not to be infringed upon except for under the most egregious of circumstances. Not only is it a right, but it is a necessity, as claimed by philosopher Simone Weil, “Equality is a vital need of the human soul” (Simone Weil, 1940). In her essay “Equality”, Weil attempts to reconcile mankind’s need for equality with the preexisting inequalities in our societies. She does this by explaining two types of equality that she has defined: quantitative inequality, the inevitable inequalities due to the conditions of privilege or disadvantage under which we are born or find ourselves victim due to no fault of our own, and qualitative inequality, the inequalities contributed exclusively to the values which we have placed on one another as a result of our quantitative inequalities. By this definition, then, Weil communicates to the reader that equality is, in many ways, a function of the respect we express to one another and that every person is due the same amount of respect from individuals as well as institutions and customs; however, though contrary to intuition, Weil’s argument that there may be a certain level of inequality essential to creating the balance between the two types on inequality has altered my understanding of the justice system.

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.

First this essay will demonstrate how Rawls’s theory will affect the society and its structure in terms of basic social institutions, wealth distribution and major economic limits and opportunities. Then, the essay will demonstrate the same for Nozick’s theory on distributive justice. I will then describe, in which society I would prefer to live in and why.

It's impossible to get rid of slavery - no it isn't, people just have to get it isn't ok. Same goes for religious notion of state. It's simplistic and mostly false to frame the Rawls/Nozick disagreement in terms of "equality vs. liberty". Rawls' position had two fundamental principles: (1) equal access to the most extensive framework of basic liberties possible (political freedom; freedom of thought and conscience; freedom from harm and arbitrary detention; personal property rights), and (2) whichever social/economic distribution of goods favours the least advantaged. He gave ultimate priority to (1): his whole project was an attempt to move away from utilitarian conceptions of justice (which allow the removal of any of the individual freedoms outlined in (1) so long as it maximises happiness). He only saw (2) as important because, in extremely stratified societies, those at the bottom do not have equal opportunity to exercise their basic liberties. So when the guy in this video talks about "equality" being the "benchmark" of social institutions, he's misinterpreted Rawls as meaning "socioeconomic equality". But for Rawls, the role of social institutions was really the upholding of

In A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents his argument for justice and inequality. Rawls theorizes that in the original position, a hypothetical state where people reason without bias, they would agree to live in a society based on two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 4). These two principles of justice are named the first and second principles. The first is the equal rights and liberties principle. The second is a combination of the difference principle and the fair equality of opportunity principle, or FEOP (Rawls 1971, 53). Rawls argues that inequality will always be inevitable in any society (Rawls 1971, 7). For example, there will always be a varied distribution of social and economic advantages. Some people will be wealthier than

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

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

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

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.