Wealth Inequality Gap Analysis

In John Rawls' A Theory of Justice, he argues that morally, society should be constructed politically as if we were all behind a veil of ignorance; that is, the rules and precepts of society should be constructed as if we had no prior knowledge of our future wealth, talents, and social status, and could be placed in any other person's societal position (Velasquez, 2008). Through this, Rawls believes that people will create a system of “justice as fairness” because their lack of knowledge regarding who they are will prevent them from arranging a society that would benefit those in their position at the expense of others.

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 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

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.

Rawls has an idea called the “justice as fairness.” He believes that if you place people in a situation that is fair among all the people and they take all relevant information into account, then the ideas they would agree to are also fair. According to Rawls, the original position is crucial to the justice of fairness because it is designed to be a fair and impartial point of view. In taking up this point of view, people are to imagine themselves in the position of free and equal people who agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice. The main aspect of the original position is the veil of ignorance. It’s job is to take away the person’s knowledge of particular facts about themselves, such as sex, class, race, and ethnicity, that they could use to their advantage or that could be used against them, if put in a certain economic position. The parties have to have some form of knowledge, though, so they are allowed general facts. Things such as people and societies, including knowledge of the laws and economics, psychology, political science, and biology and other natural sciences. Rawls argues that if a person doesn’t know if they will suffer or benefit from society, they will choose the best possible option of the best possible outcome. This all leads back to justice as fairness and the idea that people put in a fair situation will choose fair ideas, also. (Theory of Justice,

Rawls’ primary concern when addressing social justice is what rights and duties members of society have in the prevailing institutions and how the benefits should be distributed. With this, Rawls argues from two primary principles of justice. The first being the equality principle and the second being the difference principle. The equality principle stipulates that each individual must hold the same level of liberty as each other individual. The difference principle advocates that social and economic inequalities be distributed only to the advantage of the worst-off--giving the worst off in society a fair deal. This leads into Rawls’ Original Position.

John Rawls proposes a solution in his paper “Justice as Fairness,” to this idea of inequality.

On the other side Rawls believes that, we would reasonably receive two essential standards of equity for our general public: "the first obliges balance in the task of fundamental rights and obligations, while the second holds that social and monetary imbalances, for instance disparities of riches and power, are simply just in the event that they bring about remunerating profits for everybody, and specifically for the minimum advantaged parts of

Unfortunately true equity will never happen simply because our culture is too complex. Although part of the theory where the minority should never be opressed in the pleasure of the majority can be accomplished. This is extremely difficult for the reason that the majority would need to decide this. The fact that the favorability of the majority holds most of the power even if it isn't explicitly clear. The thought that the rich hold the power in our society is completely true, and will stay true until the majority of the people decide to strip the power. We grant them their power and we decide when they should not have it anymore. Every revolution in history was lead by the common people and the power that they hold. I believe Rawls had good intentions with believing that equality is essential in ethics, but this is an extreme view of it. This type of equality is somewhat bureaucratic in nature. The value that every participant at the same level are equal, with the distribution of of employee ID numbers in order to create uniformity. This will realistically never happen because not every person is equal. Each individual is unique, therefore

Q2: According to Rawls’, the feudal or caste system, the libertarian, and the meritocratic theories would be rejected by the contracting parties because these “three theories base distributive shares on factors that are arbitrary from a moral point of view - whether accident of birth, or social and economic advantage or natural talents or abilities. Only the difference principle avoids basing the distribution of income and wealth on these contingencies.” (Sandel pg. 167)

John Rawls is an egalitarian philosopher and his framework of justice as fairness requires adherence to two principles: the original position and the veil of ignorance. Rawls states that governments should not simply provide basic liberties to its citizens but should ensure that the liberties are distributed fairly in society. In the distribution of these basic liberties or primary goods to all people, the two principles and the original position should be adhered to in order to ensure equity . The original position requires people to imagine themselves to be free and equal people who are committed to the principles of social and political justice . By committing to the original position, the two principles of justice can then be followed.

Rawls also argued, that priorities must be given to the needs of the disadvantaged. He was willing to tolerate inequalities in society if they were arranged so that they help the least advantaged members of society. This applies to possible inequalities in wealth and power because the disadvantaged aren’t priorities and they are forgotten about. Wealth and social position should be arranged to help disadvantaged people but aren’t being arranged to do so.

Rawl’s says that there is a hope of justice, if you have intelligent which including that no one knows wealth, race social status and other characteristics. They are concerned about the preference that is unknown to future

Furthermore, the second law of the John Rawls’ Theory of Justice states that “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all” (60). No doubt, John Rawls second principle of justice establishes social equality in the society and opens the door of opportunities to every single individual, who wants to rise from his/her present miserable situation. But this law, disrupts the socioeconomic balance in the society. In this case everybody wants to be in higher positions to be reputed in the society and no one wants to be a poor or miserable. Rawl is suggesting an equal distribution of wealth amongst the people to relish the freedom and equality. It disturbs the monopoly and make an imbalance in the economic growth of the country. For example; Andrew Gibson, in his political research finds that …. “Inequality of income and wealth is a driver of growth. Income disparities are part of the …...price system and they are a form of free speech - invest here!” (The Benefits of Wealth ……Inequality). Rawls is speaking about inequality which is absolutely about material wealth and designations. He is also seeking equality on the professional basis, whereas Socrates divide the

What does justice mean and what role should the government play in maintaining it? Does it mean to redistribute wealth to help those who are less fortunate or does it mean allowing individuals to freely give to those who are poor? This question has been debated for a long time and will still be debated for years to come. This paper will look at the writings of two philosophers, John Rawls and Robert Nozick, and compare and contrast their beliefs on what that question means and whether or not one theory is more beneficial to society in the long run.