Social Contract Is The Formidable Obelisk For Peacebuilding And Statebuilding

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.

As per the 1948 Universal announcement of human rights, all individuals regardless of their background are all born equal before the law. This declaration made by the powerful nations and signed by all nations strong and weak that belong to the United Nations reflects the thoughts of many earlier philosophers to include the 16th & 17th Century Martin Luther, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. However, each philosopher -based on their times and experiences gave a different value to how men use their freedom and equality in presence of the other in a society, and in relation to political authority. As determinant of his freedom to act and think, the three writings focused on the will of man, the promise that shapes the social contract, and the

The preliminary point into an inquiry of distributive justice is to disconnect the conjunction of “distributive,” and “justice”. For the purpose of this essay, I will inherit and accept John Rawls explanation of justice from A Theory of Justice. “Justice,” according to Rawls, “is the first virtue of social institutions.” Therefore, from a societal perspective, justice as the first virtue negates the utilitarian maxim that a loss of freedom for one would be acceptable if there was a greater good to be shared by others. In a truly just society, all people are treated fair. The questions of individual liberties are taken as settled. In the just society, liberty, rights, and fairness are not subject to a utilitarian calculation nor are they susceptible to political bargaining.

Charles Tilly’s article “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime” creates an analogy between the creation of European states and acting out an organized crime. Earlier in our course, we learned about Max Weber, who defined a state as “a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Tilly argues that the word “protection” in relation to physical force has positive and negative connotations, leading to illegitimate use of power during the period time that Tilly is discussing. Tilly’s analysis eventually tells the reader that war is always a major part of state politics; specifically that war making and state making are interdependent.

In this hypothetical situation he explained that “although all act out of self-interest, no one will be able to “stack the deck” by fashioning rules that promotes his or hers personal advantage, because no one would know what is his or hers personal advantage” (Ball et al, 2004. pg. 79). As such the vail in itself produced a form of neutrality, forcing the individual into a social contract agreement. Rawl’s concluded that through reason they arrived at two essential principles in order to guide their society. The first principle is justice, meaning everyone has equal freedom and the second principle is equal opportunities for all. He claims that in a just society nothing should be subject to any political or social bargaining.

From prep school to boot camp, from college boy to infantryman, twentieth century philosopher John Rawls lived both a privileged and challenging life that eventually led him to questioning society’s take on justice. Educated at Princeton University for his undergraduate and graduate degrees, Rawls became a philosophy professor teaching at Cornell University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard University. His first book, A Theory of Justice, published in 1971 addressed the relationship between the values of freedom and equality. Focusing on “justice as fairness”, Rawls states that instead of competing against each other, freedom and equality can be balanced. Introducing the concept of the ‘Original Position’ Rawls argues that

John Rawls wrote several highly influential articles in the 19950`s and 1960`s, his first book, A Theory of Justice (1971), revitalized the social-contract tradition, using it to articulate and defend a detailed vision of egalitarian liberalism. In Political Liberalism [PL] (1993), he recast the role of political philosophy, accommodating it to the effectively permanent “reasonable pluralism” of religious, philosophical, and other comprehensive doctrines or worldviews that characterize modern societies. He explains how philosophers can characterize public justification and the legitimate, democratic use of collective coercive power while accepting that pluralism. (Richardson)

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

Social contract denotes that a government or sovereign body exists only to serve the will of the people because the people are the source of political power that is enjoyed by the entity. The people can choose to give or withdraw the power. Not all philosophers agree that the social contract creates rights and obligations; on the contrary, some believe that the social contract imposes restrictions that restrict a person’s natural rights. Individuals who live within the society gain protection by the government from others who may pursue to cause them injury, in exchange, the citizens, must relinquish individual liberties like the capability to commit wrongdoings without being reprimanded, and they should contribute to making society

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

Cook, L. J., & Dimitrov, M. K. (2017). The social contract revisited: Evidence from communist

John Rawls, who is an American political philosopher, urges for a heightened idea of the social contract in his book “A Theory of Justice” when he states “the guiding idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interest would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association. These principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of

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.

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

Abstract: Which political and juridical foundation can justify the transit from the Western, particular, to the universal? John Rawls tries to answer this question in his article, "The Law of Peoples," proposing a kind of contract or agreement. A first agreement should be attained among liberal-democratic societies on a few political and social issues such as human rights. Then this agreement can be widened to non-liberal/democratic but well organized hierarchical societies or those that satisfy the requisites of being peaceful, of having a reasonably well organized legal system, of admitting a measure of freedom-political and religious-and of admitting the right of emigration. These two