...Rawls vs. Nozick In this essay I will explain the main theories Rawls and Nozick have on distributive justice and the role of the government in economic life, I will analyze and compare them and eventually indicate my preference. I will start with John Rawls and his thoughts in a theory of justice. Rawls strive to determine how we can make a society as just as possible. Rawls derives two principles; liberty principle and the difference principle. It is the latter I am going to analyze more closely. He also gives a theoretical device that he calls “the original position” and “the veil of ignorance” this device is ment to help us in the way that we picture our self behind a veil. We do not know the basic things about ourselves like our sex, age, financial status etc. This device is to help us be totally neutral in the sense that we do not know our status in society. After putting our self in a status quo if you will, we can now decide on what us just for the whole society. Rawls derives then the difference principle; to put this is Rawls own word the difference principle is: “Then the difference principle is a strongly egalitarian conception in the sense that unless there is a distribution that makes both persons better off an equal distribution is to be preferred.”(Rawls - theory of justice. 84/85) So in other words, the inequalities in a society can only be justified if it benefits the person that is least off. This is the main subject the debate between nozick and...
Words: 271 - Pages: 2
...John Rawls Roy Love Pol 462-01 Dr. Rose Tuesday, April 17, 2012 INTRODUCTION The philosopher and political thinker that I am doing my research paper on is John Rawls. John Rawls is world renowned as an American philosopher and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy. He was a student, professor, and an icon that achieved kleos apthiton to the highest regard. Mr. Rawls worked on many projects and wrote many books that we still use and reference today. Some of his works include: Justice as Fairness (2001), A Theory of Justice (1971), Political Liberalism (1993), and The Law of Peoples (1999). The most famous and influential work was the Theory of Justice, which was one of his first pieces of work; many say that book was his masterpiece. His work was so famous with the millions that read his work, that his work was nicknamed ‘Rawlsianism’. His work has been echoed through the ages and is quoted without people knowing who they are quoting. For example, the term veil of ignorance is used to describe the morality of an issue, like slavery. I have heard professors and others use that term without ever knowing where it came from. John Rawls has been the receipted of many awards, and according to the 42nd President of the United States, Bill Clinton, he helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself (B. Clinton 1999). One of his famous students, Samuel Freeman, wrote a book in 2007 that will show some insight on how John Rawls teaching...
Words: 1073 - Pages: 5
...| John Rawls | Justice and Equality | | [Type the author name] | 5/25/2012 | Ethics and the Legal Environment LS 312 Kaplan University | John Rawls was born in 1921 in Baltimore, Maryland. His father was a well known attorney, and his mother was a chapter president of the League of Women Voters. His parents, through occupation and affiliation were questioners of society as and its’ injustices. This I would think was a contributing factor in John Rawls philosophy of justice as fairness. His time in World War II challenged his faith as he learned of the holocaust and senseless killings upon innocent people in combat. Then the Vietnam War caused Rawls, like many other Americans, to begin to challenge the political system and how conscientious resistance from citizens could affect policies. (Wenar, 2008) Rawls attended Princeton University John Rawls is claimed to be the most important political philosopher of this century. His articles of the 60s and his first book, Theory of Justice written in 1971, was about collective coercive power and its’ use in demanding justice and fairness in a societies as addressed in his dissertation in 1951, “Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics”. (Richardson, 2005) Rawls also studied at Oxford University. His first appointments were at Cornell University and MIT and joined the Harvard University faculty in 1962 where he remained for his career of thirty years. (Wenar, 2008)John Rawls had a philosophy of social...
Words: 840 - Pages: 4
...opportunities to do as well as the upper classes. Sometimes it is due to their own decisions that they are in the position they are in but many times they are just recipients of bad luck. The next group of people are the people who are lazy and still think they deserve to have the same success as the next level of the monetary food chain. These individuals believe fairness is them being handed what others work very hard for. This is not that same idea of fairness that most of the rest of the country subscribes to . The third group is the individuals who thrives. These people are the upper-middle class and upper class who worked hard to get educations and/or build up their skills in a particular field which allows them to thrive (Lawhead 588) Does Rawls have a point? Yes. It becomes apparent that those who work hard and have success should not be held back by those who do not have the same success. If everyone receives the same “equal” share the more successful people would have no reason to work hard and truly be successful because they will always have the same as everyone else. At the same time it cannot be forgotten that there is a group of hard workers that are still unable to truly be successful and society cannot allow these people to fall too far behind (Lawhead...
Words: 328 - Pages: 2
...#2) Rawls’ original position and the veil of ignorance play a part with each other and focus on how a state will ultimately end up if people decide to form a social contract. Considering there are differences between people, such as social status, education, endurance, sex, race, etc…, Rawls says to imagine a veil of ignorance so decisions are not influenced from a place of self-interest. When individual persons part of a society, put a veil of ignorance each individual will disregard and eliminate bias notions amongst each other in that society including their own self. “Let us assume, to fix ideas, that society is a more or less self-sufficient association of persons who in their relations to one another recognize certain rules of conduct as binding and who for the most part act in accordance with them.” (Nozick, XB pg. 94-95 Para. 5) Rawls is assuming here that a society put aside their differences and acts accordingly by way of tacit acknowledgement concerning rules of conduct that connect them to each other. The veil of ignorance is a significant part of Rawls’ original position. This gives Rawls’ concept of original position because there are no biases or judgmental decisions made and everyone in that society seeks the benefit of each other. Original position is then assumed since everyone in the supposed society is equal and has no bias opinions due to the veil of ignorance. Even though the original position is assumed and “…these rules specify a system of cooperation...
Words: 633 - Pages: 3
...Tyler Cannon Peter Trumbull Business Ethics 28 September 2012 Nozick & Rawls When trying to decide how to set up a basic, just society, there are two modern theories; the theories of justice from both John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Each theory has its ups and downs and can both be argued as just, or unjust. John Rawls’ theory starts with the “original position,” in which people make decisions or legislate laws behind what is called a “Veil of Ignorance.” Behind this “veil,” Rawls deprives us of any knowledge of our own attributes under which we know everything we need to about human nature generally, but nothing about ourselves – this includes gender, position, assets, professions, etc. The “veil” allows us to be objective and impartial and choose principles of basic fairness. We choose to lessen the downside of the society as a whole. Rawls uses a thinking experiment in which one puts themselves in a hypothetical reality where one is in the “original position.” Through this, individuals can decide how to set up a society by establishing principles of justice to be governed by. His thought experiment can be translated in a way where if we didn’t know what our positions in society would be, we would be more concerned for everyone equally. Basically, if it is possible for us to be in the least-advantaged status of a society, we will be a lot more concerned for the overall general welfare. If everyone starts off in the same position, it makes agreement between...
Words: 1310 - Pages: 6
...Presentation of Rawls Back track: original position is "to set up fair procedure to which any decisions that are made will be just." He attempts to use "pure procedural justice" as a basis of theory Two principals are First : each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. Second: 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." Knowing utilitarianism pertains to maximizing happiness ; Rawls believes this to be an alternative. He believes utilitarianism can negatively effect individual rights because maximizing happiness for an individual may involve removing certain rights from other individuals. Everything you heard is his answer to how happiness to a degree can be achieved since utilitarianism is one of the most scrutinized theories because in many cases, i believe promotes Liberalism in some sense. His alternative incorporates making decisions under uncertainty and maxim. They work hand in hand because the maximum of uncertainty should be appealing to all in charge of decision making. they are all equal in the fact that none should feel embarrassment or shame to another. No one is higher than another. Rawls continues after talking about the veil of ignorance, by speaking of the rationality of parties. Rawls begins by...
Words: 911 - Pages: 4
...Written Assignment 1. Shaw and Barry distinguish two different forms of utilitarianism. What are these two forms? Briefly describe each and use examples. Shaw and Barry distinguish these two forms, act utilitarianisms and rule utilitarianism. Act Utilitarian is a form “to have a rights, then, is... to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of” (P. 109), they believe the action that can bring happiness for most of the people. For example, banning on drug can bring happiness among large number of people. Banning on drug has more positive points than negative so when the action holds the maximum of happiness is a form of act utilitarianism. Rule Utilitarian, is “identifies as rights are certain moral rules, the observance of which is of the utmost importance for the long run, overall maximization of happiness” (P.110). This rule based on morally not to hurt mankind, do not interfere with each other’s freedom and promote well being in the society. 2. What do economists mean by the "declining marginal utility of money"? Utilitarian tend to favor greater inequality of income goes back to what economist would call the declining marginal utility of money. (P. 112) It mean that utilitarian want more worker participation and more equal distribution. For example utilitarian will vote to democratic. Because they want to promote social well being for more people. They want to see equality in society. 3. Robert Nozick presents his entitlement theory as...
Words: 336 - Pages: 2
...different connotations depending on whom is asked. As a kid growing up in the working middle class I learned that “fairness” is earning something that you worked for, not having something handed to you. Society is founded on the wants and needs of the people, but mostly the wants. The society in this hypothetical world that author John Rawls imagines can easily be defined as a communist and utilitarian society. In the Theory of Justice, John Rawls theoretically explains a society that would be ideal for the majority of the population. According to him, the theory of justice will only be adapted by society if it “guarantees the right of each person to have the most extensive basic liberty compatible with the liberty...
Words: 1187 - Pages: 5
...Name Professor Course Date Why does Mills think that Utilitarianism provides the foundation for Justice and why does Rawls reject it? Introduction The concept of utilitarianism is one that has engulfed the philosophical arena with an obscene number of arguments that support and/or criticize it. Generally, utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics that defines an action as one that ensures maximum utility. Other schools of thought would like to put it as the concept of “maximizing happiness while reducing suffering” (Mills 3).In as much as utilitarianism has continued to receive applause from people and the political scene, other divergent scholars has come up with other theories that seek to compromise the philosophies under which the concept of utilitarianism operates. As a result, utilitarianism has become subject to contradictions from other theories in the field of ethics. The thinking class in other fields of utilitarianism characterizes in as a quantitative yet reductionist approach to ethics (Mills 3). Over time, the concept of utilitarianism has received ideological threats from; deontological ethics which does not assign moral worth to an action based on its consequences, virtue ethics that solely deals with action and habits that results to happiness, pragmatic ethics and other forms of ethics that backs the idea of consequentialism. In a nut shell, the concept of utilitarianism as defined by political philosophers and in relation to justice is becoming...
Words: 3508 - Pages: 15
...Justice as Fairness Harvard philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) developed a conception of justice as fairness in his now classic work A Theory of Justice. Using elements of both Kantian and utilitarian philosophy, he has described a method for the moral evaluation of social and political institutions. Thesis: While John Rawls theory of Justice as Fairness argues that all social values are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of these values is to everyone’s advantage, his argument is flawed by his reliance on the veil of ignorance and his two principles of justice that are difficult to apply in society. Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new social contract for today's society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, could you take steps at least to minimize them? In his book, A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to argue a position to do this very thing. He asks us to imagine a fantastic scene: a group of people are gathered to plan their own future society, hammering out the details of what will basically become a Social Contract. Rawls calls this the “Original Position.” In the Original Position, the future citizens do not yet know what part they will play in their upcoming society. They must design their society behind what Rawls calls the Veil of Ignorance. Rawls says in his book titled the A Theory of Justice, “No one knows...
Words: 2174 - Pages: 9
...Natural Law Theory & Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics, & Recent Theories of Rights: Rawls & Nozick. Natural Law Theory: Natural Law theory in ethics is not to be confused with the laws of nature as put forward by physicists or other natural scientists, but they are related and do overlap. In moral domains, we are not concerned to give a mathematical, experimentally based theory of ethics or justice, but we are concerned with the general order of nature and how human life is nestled in and depends on that order. For example, life (& its preservation) depends on observing the necessities and limitations of nature, how we are dependent on food, shelter, parents and a community and the satisfying of other natural needs for life to exist, continue and prosper. The most prominent philosophers & political thinkers in this line of thought include the following: ancient - Plato, Aristotle, & later Cicero & other Roman statesmen; medieval - St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas & other thinkers in the Judeo-Christian tradition; modern - John Locke, & of course Thomas Jefferson & the “founding fathers” of the American republic. According to almost all of these authors, the natural order ultimately depends upon a first ordering principle that established the relation between man and nature. That first principle is commonly referred to as God or Creator, as indicated, for example, in the opening of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. One line of reasoning introduced by Plato is based...
Words: 3180 - Pages: 13
...BUS 309 WK 4 Quiz 3 Chapter 3 - All Possible Questions To Purchase Click Link Below: http://strtutorials.com/BUS-309-WK-4-Quiz-3-Chapter-3-All-Possible-Questions-BUS3094.htm BUS 309 WK 4 Quiz 3 Chapter 3 - All Possible Questions 1. Who is known for first holding that we should treat like cases alike? 1. Plato 2. Epicurus 3. Cicero 4. Aristotle 1. The topic of the proper distribution of burdens and benefits is known as 1. Distributive justice 2. Retributive justice 3. Economic welfare 4. Laissez-faire economics 1. Who made the violation of one’s moral rights the defining characteristic of injustice? 1. John Stuart Mill 2. Adam Smith 3. Karl Marx 4. Robert Nozick 1. Rawls’s theory of justice is 1. A libertarian theory 2. An egalitarian theory 3. A utilitarian theory 4. A retributivist theory 1. Justice for Mill was ultimately a matter of 1. Luck 2. Promoting social well-being 3. Property rights 4. Enforced equality 1. Brandt defends the equality of after-tax income on 1. Libertarian grounds 2. Deontological grounds 3. Utilitarian grounds 4. Egalitarian grounds 1. Libertarians assume that liberty means 1. Freedom 2. Noninterference 3. Equality 4. Liberation 1. Nozick begins with the premise that people have 1. Certain basic moral rights 2. Equality of income 3. Equality of opportunity 4. Certain basic positive rights 1. Nozick refers to the firm restrictions that rights impose as 1. Side constraints 2....
Words: 727 - Pages: 3
...which considers extending the traditional boundaries of ethics from only including hum and to non-humans. There are many ethical decisions that human beings make with respect to the environment. Humans are been considered of rational agents because they have clear preference, models uncertainty via expected values, and always to perform the action with the optimal expected outcome of itself. The action of the rational agent performs depends on the preference, the agents information of its environment, the actions, duties and obligation available and the estimated or actual benefits and the chances of success of the action. I will be arguing that rational agents have a moral obligation towards the environment. Using Peter Singer and John Rawls to argue for and Immanuel Kant to counter argue my arguments. Singer (2011) states rational agents should explore the values of preserving the wild nature; he believes that sentient beings who are capable of experiencing pain including non-humans affected by an action should be taken equally into consideration in assessing the action. Singer regards the animal liberation movement as comparable to the liberation movements of women and people of different colour skin (Singer, 2011). Unlike the environment philosophers who attribute intrinsic value to the natural environment and its inhabitants, Singer and utilitarians in general attribute intrinsic value to the experience of pleasure or interest satisfaction as such, not to the beings who...
Words: 1899 - Pages: 8
...Shaw and Barry distinguish two forms of utilitarianism. What are these two forms? Briefly describe each. Utilitarianism is the idea that we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, both philosophers, used the utilitarian standard to evaluate and criticize the social and political institutions of their day. And, as a result, utilitarianism has long been associated with social improvement. The two forms of utilitarianism are act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism, utilitarianism in its most basic version, states that we must calculate what the consequences are of a particular act in a particular situation, and what it will be for all those affected. And, if its consequences bring more total good than those of any alternative course of action, then this action is the right one and the one we should inform. Rule utilitarianism maintains that the utilitarian standard should be applied not to individual actions but to moral codes as a whole. The rule utilitarian asks what moral code, or set of morals, a society should adopt to maximize happiness. The principles that make up that code would then be the basis for distinguishing right actions from wrong actions. Same as any other theory, these theories can be thought to contain flaws- i.e. not being able to predict the future and this uncertainty can lead to unexpected results making the utilitarian...
Words: 1247 - Pages: 5
