Preview

John Rawls Theory Of Justice

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
786 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
John Rawls Theory Of Justice
John Rawls bases his Theory of Justice on the intuitive conviction that justice as fairness is the first virtue of social institutions. He argues that in order to ensure fair distributions of advantages in society, a workable set of principles are required in order to determine how institutions ought to distribute rights and duties and to establish a clear way to address competing claims to social advantages. The second principle that Rawls develops stipulates that economic and social inequalities are justifiable so long as the requirements of fair equality of opportunity have been met and if they benefit the worst off in society. Rawls argues that the requirement of improving the conditions of the worst off, known as the Difference Principle, …show more content…
Cohen argues that as a requirement of justice, people must be compensated for their misfortunes that are not derived from choice. Rawls is seen as inconsistent in his theory, as he seems to appeal to the distinction between choice and circumstance, yet his Difference Principle undermines it. However, Rawls never intended for his statements about morally arbitrary factors to have this kind significance. His intention was to provide a clear workable set of principles that could actually be applied in a democratic society. This focus on choice and circumstance distinction is impossible and distracts from what Rawls was attempting to achieve. Rawls realized that natural variances are inevitable but the Difference Principle allows for differences in natural endowments to work to the benefit of all in society. He did not attempt to eliminate the influence that morally arbitrary factors have on distributive shares because by providing people with the social bases of self-respect, the Difference Principle makes it possible to pursue diverse conceptions of the good. Rawls’ theory should be understood as an attempt to devise the most reasonable solutions that could be applied in a …show more content…
The thought experiment offers a way of deducing just principles that free and rational persons would choose if they were not able to know what position they would occupy in life. The principles are chosen behind a veil of ignorance that prevents the participants from knowing particular information about themselves. Rawls believes this would lead to fair results as participants are unable to choose principles that they can profit from. Rawls argues that the rational persons, behind the veil of ignorance, would give priority to the Liberty Principle which means that "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all". Participants would choose a second principle which stipulates that social and economic inequalities are justifiable if they satisfy two conditions: they are arranged so that they are both to the greatest possible benefit of the least advantaged, which is known as the Difference Principle; and that positions and offices are open to all under the conditions of fair equality of

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    John Rawls’ Fairness Approach is an appropriate ethical framework to use when assessing this dilemma. This approach questions if everyone involved is being treated fairly (is there favoritism and discrimination?). The Fairness Approach examines how fairly or unfairly the actions of an individual or group distribute benefits and burdens everyone else. With this approach, consistency of treatment among persons is key. The only insistence when treatment must differ is if there is a morally relevant difference between people (Andre, Meyer, Shanks, Velasquez, 1989). There are three different kinds of justice -- Distributive, Restorative, and Compensatory. Distributive justice focuses on the benefits and burdens evenly distributed amongst society’s…

    • 183 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Utilitarianism is amongst the most famous moral theories to argue social issues. Developed by Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarianism is a belief that welfare and happiness should be maximized. Bentham believed that the morality of an action was determined by how much overall utility resulted from that action. Following were philosophers like include John Stuart Mill and John Rawls who mentioned that utilitarianism was a moral theory that could be used to justify inequality. Utilitarianism however is perhaps the most efficient theory to approach normative ethics. This consequential theory is understood to hold that the right action will always produce the greatest good. It is not concerned with the means to achieve the greatest good but how much good is produced. So, to refer back to Rawls’ comment, utilitarianism is a theory most commonly effective to argue against inequality since both Bentham and Mill will agree that, the action that produces ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ will always be the right action. Because utilitarianism in all emphasizes social welfare, it is best to acknowledge that the rising income inequality in the United States is unethical.…

    • 607 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Theory of Justice

    • 972 Words
    • 4 Pages

    In A Theory of Justice, Rawls begins with the statement that, ‘‘Justice is the first virtue of social institution,’’ meaning that a good society is one structured according to principals of justice (1998). John Rawls states that when a person is covered in the veil of ignorance, a society without his/her own status known must begin in that society. They must provide a place that they could relate to for someday they may have bad luck and end up as a person on the lowest end of the ladder in society. This is one way to have a just and fair society for all to live. A place where status does not matter and no one would ever feel bad for the situation they are in.…

    • 972 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The first interpretation of Rawls’ second principle is the efficiency principle, from which follows the system of liberal equality. The efficiency principle states that a configuration is efficient when it is impossible to alter the configuration so as to make some persons better off without making others worse off. For any given scenario, there are many possible configurations that are efficient, but according to this principle none are better than others. Evidently, the efficiency principle cannot on its own be a measure for justice. The system of liberal equality attempts to add a component of justice to the efficiency principle by implementing…

    • 2769 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The United States Pledge of Allegiance is an honorable and commendable mantra. It concludes with, “one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” Justice in the former reference is inclusive for everyone, an entitlement, granted upon birth. John Rawls position of justice is that “everyone should be treated equally and as fair as possible”. Mr. Rawls position parallels the Egalitarian theory of equality and mutual respect. This isn’t necessarily the practice because contrary to the hope for multiple factors are factored in to the outcome.…

    • 230 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    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.…

    • 1767 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Rawls Summary

    • 473 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Rawls first begins with discussing how we are lead to the original position. The original position is a hypothetical argument that considers a society where people do not decide what is right or wrong based on a higher power or emotion, but rather on common sense. These ideas establish justice or fairness simply based on the community’s beliefs that they create. However, these agreements cannot be made without the “veil of ignorance.” This means that all instances that would create a distortion of views must be ruled out. Thus, the people discussing what the rules will be cannot have any information about the other individual, or the society’s position. The hypothetical argument is contingent on all things being fair and equal, which means that all people involved in crating the beliefs must be free of any preconceived ideas. Another part of the equality of this situation is that every member of a society, including the minority, must be treated fairly. Rawls stated that every citizen had basic liberties and human rights that must be protected. He believed that societies need to protect the least advantaged citizen in order to be successful. We determine which citizens are least advantaged based on if they possess primary goods. Primary goods are what is needed to be a functioning and contributing member of society. These things are not necessarily monetary, but rather on psychological capabilities, historical facts, social capabilities, as well as, moral abilities being free and equal. Rawls believe that the five most important primary goods that determine advantage are basic rights and liberties, freedom to choose, responsibility, income and self respect. These things can make this hypothetical a reality and a society fair as equals.…

    • 473 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    John Rawls, of the most important political philosopher, is primarily known for his theory of justice as fairness. This theory was established in order to build and maintain govern a modern social order. Rawls' theory is the building blocks of a society where the people have equal opportunities for personal or political aspirations. His theory also would help the less advantaged people benefit more. The theory of Justice is considered to be a fair system of cooperation over time, from one generation to the next.…

    • 1243 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Employment-at-Will

    • 1995 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Fairness, not unlike all other virtues, has an influence on our calculation of utility. As a guiding principle of individual liberty, “Fairness means treating people equitably, without bias or partiality.”5 By extension, Epstein asserts that the law…

    • 1995 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    John Rawls, using Kantian rationality, discusses ways to determine principles of social justice. He begins by making a clear distinction as to what defines the social justice used in his argument – “the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation”. Rawls then continues to introduce concepts such as the original position which pertains to the thought experiment he calls the veil of ignorance – the original position is a hypothetical state where members of society decide what the principles of justice are. To find the original position, the members must use the veil of ignorance in the sense of having ignorance toward class, intelligence, strength, and things alike, in order to prevent bias and in turn create a fair choice. With this in mind, Rawls sets forth to disprove utilitarianism within justice. He claims that utilitarianism is unjust for it does not respect the rights and liberties of all individuals - if slavery was beneficial to the majority, using utilitarianism logic, some would claim it is just. Rawls argues for the equality of rights; inequalities are justified only if they benefit the society as a whole. He makes a key distinction between the benefit of the majority, and the advantage of all.…

    • 472 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    John Rawls is recognized as being among the most important political philosophers of the late twentieth century. He is best known for his theory of Justice as Fairness that advances principles of justice necessary to govern a modern social order and offers a hypothetical variation on the social contract theory, in which rational representatives make social decisions from behind a "veil of ignorance" that prevents prior knowledge of what status they will hold. According to Rawls, this method would produce a society where individual freedoms are maximized for all and social inequality is justifiable only under conditions that would be…

    • 1805 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better 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

    Utilitarianism is a moral theory that distributes benefits and burdens in a society based on the goal of maximizing utility, defined as the satisfaction of desire. John Rawls has developed a competing moral theory called Justice as Fairness, which yields significantly different insights into the proper structure of society than does Utilitarianism. This paper details three of Rawls's most convincing criticisms of Utilitarianism along with my comments as to the effectiveness of each argument. The criticisms include: • • How Utilitarianism views the distribution of resources in a society, How the distinction between persons is treated, and…

    • 566 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good 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 this essay, Rawls presents a justification for civil disobedience by what he describes to be a Social Contract Doctrine where a citizenry is required to abide by laws that are made to benefit the populous as a whole while unjust laws; passed constitutionally; could be criticized in the constitutional democracy through civil disobedience. These acts will allow the majority to see what’s wrong in their actions and should only be allowed when one is subject to injustice over an extended period of time, where injustice is in clear violation of liberties and equal citizenship, and when it would be socially acceptable to protest other things of similar caliber. Rawls provides a useful explanation for why and when we should exercise Civil Disobedience,…

    • 163 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays