Original Position Essay

In the United States, public policy is shaped by multiple factors, from average citizens voices in elections to interest groups and organizations. In their study, “Testing theories of American politics”, scholars Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens explore the impact of average citizens, the economic elite and interest groups have on the passage of public policy. Additionally through their, Page and Gilens(2014) have found “that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence” (Pg 535). This means that when it comes to the creation of public policies, rich people and groups

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

ABSTRACT. Adapting the traditional social contract approach of earlier years to a more contemporary use, John Rawls initiated an unparaleled revitalization of social philosophy. Instead of arguing for the justification of civil authority or the form that it should take, Professor Rawls is more interested in the principles that actuate basic social institutions —he presupposes authority and instead focuses on its animation. In short, Rawls argues that “justice as fairness” should be that basic animating principle.

The in class Rawls assignment focused on justice, and the fairness of how people are treated throughout society. The class, after being broken down into groups, tackled the subjects of why people disagree about what is right, and what is not, and how morals and ethics guides a person’s interest as to what is fair and what is just. As with many things in life, there are two sides to every story. There are people that accentuate the outcome, and those that accentuate the process. Those that put emphasis on the outcome, more than likely see inequality as unjustifiable. However, when the process is emphasized, although the system may seem unequal, it provides everyone with a fair chance.

If pressed for the most simplistic one-sentence answer to how I viewed my understanding of this work I would not hesitate to exclaim, “The most conclusive qualitative argument for ‘justice as fairness’”. Notwithstanding, this simplistic review needs to be supported in a way that encourages others, who are inclined, to relish the challenge of critical discourse on the imperative questions of political philosophy raised by John Rawls.

John Rawls was a philosopher who held the James Bryant Conant University Professorship at Harvard University. Rawls published several books and many articles. In one of his most remarkable works, A Theory of Justice, Rawls depicts his views on the utilitarian position taken by many Western democracies; Ralws believed this method of social justice was unfair to the least advantaged. In fact, this method could do as much to harm those minorities. Rawls position in regard to social fairness and utilitarianism is precise to a certain extent. The argument of utilitarianism has a number of problems, including, especially, that it seems to be consistent with the idea of the tyranny of majorities over minorities. However,

John Rawls argues for an universal standard of justice, conceived as “Justice as Fairness”. Rawls presents his standard of justice as a framework of principles for determining optimal and fair resolutions among persons in society. In this essay, I will analyze Rawls’s principles of justice and his original position and contemplate a utilitarian response to the original position while critiquing the universality of the original position. Lastly, applied to the relevant example of democratic rights, I will show how the non universality of the original position allows for unfair distributions under a Rawlsian framework.

In this paper we will look at the original position as a constructive procedure for recognizing the principles of justice, and I will defend such a procedure from the arguments made by G.A. Cohen in Rescuing Justice and Equality. Rawls’s constructivism is characterized by the use of the concept of the original position. Rawls is a constructivist in the sense that the principles of justice are products of a choice made in the original position. The procedure for making the decision of which principles are to obtain is central in Rawls’s account – the substance of these procedures are therefore, according to Rawls, determined neither by human psychology nor a system of conceiving-independent values. The basis for such principles are constructed by equal and free persons under fair conditions, and so is referred to as “justice as fairness” (Theory of Justice 11).

Rawls’ attempt to define justice as fairness within the confines of the original position in A Theory of Justice establishes a deontological ethic. Rawls’ theory prioritizes individual liberty with equality to illustrate the deficiencies of utilitarianism. Despite criticism from Sandel, Rawls’ justice as fairness theory adequately defends a redistributive system for the entire society while addressing the inequality of luck.

John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice holds that rational, mutually disinterested individuals, in the Original Position and given the task of establishing societal rules to maximise their own happiness throughout life, are liable to choose as principles of societal 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 cbfgdbre for the maintenance of fundamental liberties, equality of opportunity and support for the disadvantaged is exercised. However, when the individual runs the risk of incafdfbsfgrnating into an elitist society, they may be

Rawls develops the idea of an “original position” as a conception point and a justification for this theory of distributive justice. In this original position, an individual is standing behind a veil of ignorance which blocks out social class, economic class, sexuality or natural talents. In this place, an individual is in the position to make the most basic moral decisions because they face no external bias. If one knows no place in society, a rational person will make decisions that help those who are worse off. In the original position, the principles of justice would be agreed to by any rational human. This position supports the idea that while each person might have a different background, they should have a fair chance to pursue goals and the equality of opportunity despite these

John Rawls was a man who played an influential role in shaping political thought in the late 20th century. Rawls is accredited for writing two major contributions that has helped influence political ideology of those even today. His first piece was published in 1971, A Theory of Justice, which argues his belief of justice on the domestic level and also that reconciliation between liberty and equality must occur in order to have a just society . Rawls’s belief of what justice should be is extremely controversial, and helped put Rawls on the map. Later, after Rawls gained a reliable reputation he published another piece called, Law of the Peoples, which was his application of justice towards international affairs and what he believes

John Rawls was known by many as one of the greatest American political philosophers of the twentieth century. He is well known for his published work called the Theory of Justice. In this book, he tried to explain the political structures that are designed by society for its citizens. He considered his theory as a guide to preserving social justice and individual liberty. In this essay, I will explain Rawls philosophy on the principles of justice, the veil of ignorance and provide my criticisms to his theories.

John Rawls was born on 21st February, 1921 in Baltimore, Maryland. His father was practicing laugher and his mother was the President of the new League of women voters in Baltimore. Rawls graduated from the Princeton University majoring in philosophy. Upon graduating from Princeton University, Rawls joined the US army and when his troops visited the remains of Hiroshima, if profound effect on him. Later, he joined the Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, as assistant Professor of Philosophy. In 1962, he was given Professorship at Harvard where he published his ‘Theory of Justice’ in 1971 and was awarded the Phi Beta Kappa Ralph Waldo Emerson prize in 1972. He retired in 1991 but continued teaching political philosophy till 1995.

John Rawls is an American philosopher who was born in 1921 and died in the year 2002. In His books, Theory of Justice and Justice and fairness published in 1971 and 1958 respectively, Rawls is noted for being a social contract theorist in that he believes that our