The case for equality In the case for equality, American political philosopher John Rawls claims that justice is to ask what principles we individuals would agree to in an initial situation of equality. His reason for that was because different people would favor different principles depending on their interests, religious views, backgrounds and social positions. He also reasoned that the two principles which we would not choose are going to be utilitarianism and libertarian. On the contrary, he believes the two principles of justice will be from the hypothetical contract which will firstly provide equality for all the citizens in terms of speech and other factors. The other principle involves social and economic equality. To understand Rawls principles of hypothetical contract, we should know that actual contract carry moral weight insofar as they realize two ideals which are autonomy and reciprocity. The author, Michael Sandel argues consent is not a sufficient condition of moral obligation as it does not guarantee fairness of an agreement and is not enough to create a binding moral claim. Sandel further states that “despite our tendency to read consent into every moral claim, it is hard to make sense of our moral lives without acknowledging the independent weight of reciprocity.” Rawls idea of hypothetical agreement as described by the author ensures equality. The veil of ignorance ensures equality of power and knowledge and that no one can take advantage. Rawls mentions that the several theories of justice are unfair as these systems such as income and status are distributed according the accident of your birth. Rawls also believes that the meritocratic conception corrects for certain morally arbitrary advantages but still falls short of justice. According to Rawls, in thinking about justice, we should abstract from facts about the person and their social positions. Rawls two difference in principles were incentives and effort. His reasons were the difference of principles would cause income inequalities and that it was simply to help the disadvantaged simply because of equality and not of the high status positions. Rawls also argues that people’s natural talents are not their own doing. Like other factors in success, he states effort may be the result of an upbringing and the effort the person is willing to make is influenced by his abilities, skills and alternatives open to them. The better endowed were more likely to strive diligently.
The principle which I agree on is the second principle of John Rawls views on Justice. It was about social and economic inequalities which are to be arranged so that everyone will have the same equal opportunities when it comes to job positions and all. However, I disagree the part which Rawls explained about effort, I