The Principle Of Justice For A Democratic Society

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.

The veil allows for equality and ensures that no advantaged nor disadvantaged individual will be swayed to decide a certain way on a principle due to their natural and social biases in society. One example given in Rawls’ work deals with two men; one man is wealthy while the other man is poor. As the topic of tax and reform comes up, the wealthy man pleads his case and denounces the tax and welfare system that was in place solely because he did not want his riches taken from him. On the other hand, the poor man pleaded his side of the discussion, fully supporting the tax and welfare system in place, stating that the system is completely just and necessary, therefore causing a split conclusion on the principle due to differences in characteristic bias. Therefore, to solve this difference, Rawls created the notion of the veil of ignorance which gives neither the wealthy man nor the poor man prior knowledge to their financial status (or any other natural/social statuses) allowing the overall greater equality for society to be exposed.

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.

This passage particularly coincides with the concept of distribution Rawls, Two Principles of Justice. Rawls’ principles of justice include first; the equal distribution of rights and liberties for all and second; Permissible inequality in distributions, according to what is being distributed. Distribution must however benefit everyone and offices should be open to all. Rawls concedes that the government, consented for by the people should distribute economic and social goods to its citizens, yet he claims that inequality will develop over the distribution because of certain factors such as need, position and so

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.

To live in a place, where equality, peace, security and dignity are guaranteed is a good fortune to those who found a just society. Though it is not an easy task to establish a just society, but it is not an impossible idea. A just society requires a society of law abiding citizens who work together for the betterment of the society, where laws are human rights informed and social policies are effective.

These principles are arranged by Rawls in a specific order and are subject to the priority rule, ie the first principle has to always precede the second and 2a should always come before 2b. Rawls’ commitment to equality, his passionate defense of liberty and his acceptance of inequality only when it brings advantages to the least advantaged are the basic principles of his theory. Thus Rawls advocates a constitutional democracy as the arrangement for upholding these principles. Although this theory seems like a foolproof and universal arrangement in favour of justice and

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

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

Every citizen aspires to obtain a just society in which to live. Some political philosophers hold differing opinions as how to reach this just society. One of the more widely accepted approaches is John Rawl's Difference Principle.

Over the decades, the concept of justice has been continually evolving. This is occurring based upon different moral or legal interpretations. Evidence of this can be seen with observations from Burke (2011) who said, "Few things are of more importance to a society than its concept of justice. This is because it is justice that provides criterion for the legitimate use of force. In the name of justice people are detained, arrested, handcuffed, put on trial and punished. This concept is used to provide every society with some kind of social order. Over the last 200 years, a revolution has taken place with these principles. Our idea of it is what we employ, when dealing with ordinary individuals in daily life including: making agreements, paying bills, resolving disputes and putting criminals in jail. This is a concept that is as old as recorded history and it is familiar to people everywhere. What makes it so unique is that these ideas are constantly changing which focuses on society as a whole and how people are interacting with each other. " (Burke)

second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the Difference Principle)” (Rawls, 63). This meant that there needed to be fair and equal opportunity for all to obtain the best jobs in the public and private sector of society. It also meant that education needed to be accessible for all people. He also made clear that the lower class of society or the ones with the least advantages should be compensated or concessions should be made for them in the quest for fairness. In other words economic inequalities were ok if they benefited society and especially the ones with the least advantages. Rawls concentrated on the

Rawls argues that two principles could be universally agreed upon by individuals in the original position: the equality of rights and the difference principle. No individual in the original position would choose to subject themself to a society that unequally assigns rights and duties because they might find themself severely disadvantaged in such a society. Similarly, no individual in the original position would choose to subject themself to an organization of society in which the least-advantaged were not the most well off. To clarify, it would be the most rational for individuals in the original position to try to maximally improve the situation of the least-advantaged individuals, since they might find themselves in the position of the least-advantaged. The difference principle derived thus is that social and economic inequalities must benefit everyone and be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged individuals in society.

Edward Soja (2010:76) argues that Rawls’ theory of distributive justice is intended to be universally applicable, spatially and historically “as if the theory reflected natural law”. Furthermore, Soja suggests that in creating such normative criterion to define justice he subordinates what