Preview

John Rawls Theory of Societal Justice

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1767 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
John Rawls Theory of Societal Justice
Have you ever wondered what would be required in order to create a just society? Let us think from the perspective of societal ground zero. We have not been in existence for the past few thousand years. We have no ancestors to direct us, no rules to follow, and no experience to guide us. Imagine that we have not even come to be yet. Consider for a moment that society has yet to be established. Assume there are hypothetical homunculi with the sole task of devising the goals, the guiding light, for society. How would societal goals be designed so they are fair and just for all?
In what follows, I will attempt to portray the philosophy of John Rawls with regard to the theory of societal justice. My aim is convey Rawls’ conception of justice. I will discuss his original position of equality and how the essential veil of ignorance collaborates with the original position to arrive at a societal ground zero. I will also address the two principles that Rawls believe would emerge from the original position to guide a just society.
Rawls aspires to investigate and present a conception of justice. He believes that, in order to create a just society, we must begin in a hypothetical place with no predetermined conceptions of social or economic status. No person would know his place in society, or what social or economic class he fits into. No one would be aware of his own intelligence or abilities. Further still, no person would know what assets or disadvantages were distributed to him by chance, generation, or inheritance. This hypothetical position of unknowing would create an “original position of equality” (Rawls, p. 498). From this original position, everyone is equal in all conceivable societal and economic terms.
In this initial position of equality, there would be totally free, completely rational homunculi that are interested in fostering their own interests. Rawls believes the free, rational, and self-interested homunculi in this hypothetical initial position of

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    When you picture equality, do you see people carrying around heavy bags of birdshot on their necks with the reasoning that they are “stronger than the average person”? No, I didn’t think so. The point I’m trying to get at, is in the short story “Harrison Bergeron” the matter of equality is taken far out of proportion. Total equality is absolutely impossible. It doesn’t matter how many restrictions you put on people, there will always be people who are superior to others.…

    • 423 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    This paper aims to compare the ideas of equal opportunities and sports equity with regard to sport in Britain. Within this structure, there will be particular emphasis on the theoretical approaches that are used to look at equality in British sport. A key part of this comparison is the study of (social) equality; this includes formal, radical and liberal interpretations of equality. The arguments and suggestions will be reinforced and supported by literature and other texts outside of just the sporting context.…

    • 2881 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Under the Veil of Ignorance, Rawls asks us to imagine what rules we would want to exist in the world, assuming that we do not know what kind of life we would have in the world. For example, it assumes that we do not know how we will look like, how much money will we have, or what sexual orientation will we have. In this position, Rawls states that the rationally self-interested person will ask themselves, “what if I were in the position of society’s least advantaged?…

    • 585 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A just society should be one that leads to progression and protects an individual's rights and freedoms. In this paper I will take Rawls position that we would create a more just society by creating a minimum standard of living for everyone. One of the main points presented in Nozick’s theory is that redistribution is wrong because it is unjust to steal resources that were justly earned from one person and to give it to someone else. In principle Nozick is correct that redistribution is unjust in the sense that we are taking resources from one person to give to another, however, Nozick’s view doesn’t account for the fact that people aren’t born with equal opportunity so without redistribution it results in a hierarchy that keeps increasing.…

    • 1471 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    (1) What does Rawls mean by "the original position . . . under the veil of ignorance" and how does this serve as the basis for his theory of justice? (2) What are his two principles of justice? Explain the two principles.
(3) Offer a brief critical evaluation of his theory of justice.…

    • 629 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    (MacKinnon p. 291) In order for this idea to work the people involved would have to be free from bias, in other words they must not be able to tip the scales in their favor by knowing their positions in life. Rawls points out that people consider liberty to be particularly important and would therefore choose a society that supported equal rights. However wealth is not as important and therefore it is easier to accept inequality in wealth so long as ones basic needs are met. Rawls believes that people would choose the society that better serves the poorest citizens and provides them with equal opportunity to obtain…

    • 1879 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In conclusion, Rawls’ idea of the Veil of Ignorance is an interesting one. It has faults which are heavily looked at by MacIntyre and Sandel, but it is still a substantial building ground for Rawl’s ideas. It is relevant to his position and still creates and adds character to…

    • 628 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    -because of the equality of ability, we are also naturally hopeful of attaining our ends, and thus are naturally competitive. Hobbes then says that, “therefore, if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies.”…

    • 748 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Veil Of Ignorance

    • 412 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Veil of ignorance: The exclusion of superfluous information such as age, sex, etc. allows for the determination of choice to be rendered justly and without the difference principle, which worsens the societal situation of those members who are worst off - John Rawls. Rawls’ concept of the “veil of ignorance” is a model for adopting principles of justice and was derived from an unpublished document of the same title written by Wilfried Hinsch. The concept has been submitted as a solution for equalizing people’s personal interests and doctrines as a means for allowing the political conception of justice to be successful employed.…

    • 412 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Veil Of Ignorance

    • 100 Words
    • 1 Page

    The role of the "veil of ignorance” plays in Rawls' theory of distributive justice is by eliminating bias in society making a fair way of choosing principles (Shaw & Barry, 2016). The veil is put in place so individuals from the original position would make a just decision knowing nothing of their self and their natural abilities, or their position in society. In addition the individual would know nothing of their sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes when making a decision (Shaw & Barry, 2016). Therefore, no one is at an advantage or disadvantage when making up principles in society.…

    • 100 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The primary goods will not be of equal value to every individual. Though the goods are the same (liberties, rights, opportunity etc.) the usefulness is going to be different depending on the situation of the individual. The value of any primary good is a function of the means that individual has at his disposal of making the most use of that primary good (Young and Rawls). Therefore, those with greater means will be able to make better use of their primary goods that are guaranteed for all by the conception of justice that we arrive at in the original position. Rawls then places the onus on individuals by claiming that it is up to them to align their expectations with their current situations to adequately reflect “the all-purpose means they can expect, given their present and foreseeable situation” (Rawls 189). Therefore, if an individual lacks the “all-purpose means” to secure his preferences, then it is that person’s responsibility to adjust his preferences so that he will be able to achieve realistic goals given his circumstances (Young; Rawls 189-93). This is to illustrate the fact that a conception of justice is not unjust just because citizens hold unrealistic expectations. Although this seems perfectly reasonable, it poses one problem that Rawls was trying to avoid from the outset. The expectation that citizens will…

    • 1123 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The issue of distributive justice is relevant in our society due to current thoughts on economic inequality in politics. The political philosophers John Rawls and Robert Nozick have differing views when it comes to the topic of distributive justice. This analyze the positions of John Rawls and Robert Nozick, finding that Nozick’s view of distribution is preferable to Rawls’ difference principle because people deserve to keep what they earn and their earnings should not be taken away from them because that would be a violation of their personal liberties.…

    • 1823 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    John Rawls Vs Nozick

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Therefore, both philosophers judge a society is just by how thoroughly its laws and policies follow their respective models rather than whether those laws and policies achieve morally acceptable outcomes. A primary difference between the two philosophies is the legitimacy of wealth distribution. According to Nozick, the possession of economic and social goods is only justified if it was made by means of just acquisitions or voluntary transfer. As a result, any form of taxation of the rich to, in turn, improve the prospects of the impoverished is unjustified and a violation of natural rights because it was involuntarily taxed from the rich. Therefore, Nozick believes there should be no safety net or welfare programs in a just state because such programs represent a fundamental violation of natural rights. In addition, Nozick finds it impossible to suggest that merely because society benefits from social cooperation, the impoverished deserve a fraction of the earnings rightly made by the rich. However, Nozick does more or less retain Rawls’ first principle of justice. Both philosophers believe that everyone in a just society deserves equal basic liberties such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the right to…

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In John Rawls’ social contract account of justice, “justice as fairness,” in A Theory of Justice, the original position is a central feature. The original point is set to be adopted in the way we reason about the fundamental principles of justice, and need to be fair and an impartial view thereof. Once we take up this point of view, we step into the role of free and equal persons who all agree and commit themselves to certain principles of political and social justice. “The veil of ignorance” is the main distinguishing feature and it insures impartial judgement by depriving the parties of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and historical and social circumstances. The fundamental interests they have will be known, as well as general facts about biology, psychology, economics and other natural and social sciences. The parties in the original position will be assigned to choose the conception of justice that best motivates their interests in established conditions that help them pursue their fundamental interests and goals in the list of alternatives of main ideas of justice, which is taken from the tradition of social and political philosophy. The most rational choice for everyone in the original position, says Rawls, is one of the two principles of justice.…

    • 670 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    He believes that all people in a society are free, equal, and have a drive for cooperation with each other. Then the Original Position acts as a filtering device for Rawls’s principles, which from he gets the principles equal basic rights for all, equality of opportunity, and the difference principle. The first principle “requires equality in basic rights and duties, while the second holds that social and economic inequalities...are just only if they result with compensating benefits...particularly for the least well off” (Rawls, TJ p.13). Rawls, through the difference principle, is giving priority to the least well off of a society, and this would be Rawls’s distributive justice. He believes because every member of society is free and equal we should all receive the benefits from society, and also have a society where the least well off are brought up to the highest degree. Rawls believes that social cooperation in a democratic society is the major component to making the most beneficial society for all. Rawls criticizes utilitarianism as focusing too much on society being a “forum for the coordination of activities,” while society is based off connections and the cooperation between citizens (Platz, Rawls p.1). Hayek also focuses on laws that would make the…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays