The Strength Of Rawls ' Social Contract Theory

Rawls’s principle of fair play is essentially a just and united social scheme that yields benefits when most or all members cooperate. He considers the moral obligation to obey the law as a derivative of this system: “a person who has accepted the benefits of the scheme is bound by a duty of fair play...to not take advantage of the free benefit by not cooperating...it belongs in fairness to no one” (Rawls 235). The moral obligation, which is reinforced by the just nature of fair play, is created when one accepts the benefits in order to maintain “fairness”. He also poses two anomalies that challenge this moral obligation: situation where one is obliged to obey an unjust law or where breaking the law may engender greater social utility. Rawls resolves the first conflict by assigning moral obligation to be prima facie and arguing that obeying the law is morally superior to disobeying because the system of fair play is the most just relative to other realistic legal options or to anarchy; he refutes the second point by placing “absolute weight [on

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 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,

Rawls believes that in a situation where a society is established of people who are self-interested, rational, and equal, the rules of justice are established by what is mutually acceptable and agreed upon by all the people. This scenario of negotiating the laws of that society that will be commonly agreed upon and beneficial to

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 holds that an individual cannot always agree on a contract before entering a society, some are simply born in them and would then have no say over their obligated fate. Instead of Locke’s contract theory, Rawls suggests the idea of the veil of ignorance which ensures that justice will prevail. The contract, suggested by Rawls, is created in a hypothetical situation where individuals gather together in representation of all who have and will live. These individuals have not recollection of divisions such as status, class, resources, abilities, goals, or even their own psychology. This memory swipe or veil of ignorance ensures the exclusion of bias and the pursuit of personal gain. In the final agreement, all have the same views and opinions because everything that separates one individual from another has been washed away fro the sake of the common good for all

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

Rawls claims that if people did not know their place in society they would follow through with his theory and eradicate all so called injustices that lead to an uneven distribution of wealth. Human beings will always pick the option, which allows them to have to largest possible gains, not one where everyone is on an even playing field. Beings would not place themselves in the lowest of the low; they wouldn’t assume themselves to be “those in need”. Competition seems to be completely ignored by Rawls, we are driven by

John Rawls writes that the best way to reach utilitarianism is for society as a whole to acknowledge ‘the principle of rational choice for one man.’ The rational choice theory is the belief that people behave and make decisions based on what will give them the most benefit or pleasure. Rawls believes that if you presented someone with a moral dilemma and didn’t tell them which person they were in the dilemma, they would try and make sure that each person in the dilemma was treated accordingly and fairly because they don’t know who they are in the situation. By having no biases or knowledge of who they are in the situation, it will allow for no impartiality. “Endowed with ideal powers of sympathy and imagination, the impartial spectator is the

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

More than a century later Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), carried the mantle to develop “virtue ethics” which help shape the idea in Western culture. It basically says that virtue ethics is based on our behavior and the decisions we make, and how this shapes our character. Therefore, excellence in our virtue and ethics determines our standing in society, not social position. This also would mean that we have to create a habit of ethical behavior which defines our character. All of this means that we must learn empathy.

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

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

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