...The Veil of Ignorance The concept of justice is one that most people understand, but it is difficult to define. John Rawls give his take on its true meaning in his work, “A Theory of Justice”. In an attempt to explain what justice really is, Rawls uses what he calls a ‘veil of ignorance’. The function of the veil is to make it so that all members of a just society have no knowledge of their own identity, allowing true fairness and equality. Although the veil of ignorance is central to Rawls theory of justice, I believe that it is unrealistic and cannot be applied to real life. Under the veil of ignorance, Rawls thinks that all members of a society would agree to laws that are completely fair. If no one knows their wealth, class, or abilities, then each member would agree to the same rules. He states, “They do not know how the various alternatives will affect their particular case and they are obliged to evaluate principles solely on the basis of general consideration.”(Rawls 118) The veil is a completely hypothetical concept that Rawls uses to explain what justice means. I do agree that under this veil, the laws agreed upon would allow each person the same advantages or disadvantages. However, this veil of ignorance cannot be applied to reality because no such situation has ever existed. Each person has characteristics that cannot be taken away, so each person has a unique identity. No matter how fair a group of individuals tries to be, they will each work to benefit themselves...
Words: 486 - Pages: 2
...Justice of Michael Sandel: In 1884 the British ship Mignonette foundered in the South Atlantic. The four crewmen, including the captain, escaped in a lifeboat, with only two cans of turnips for sustenance. One of the survivors was the cabin boy, 17, an orphan, who soon took sick after drinking seawater. On the 19th day at sea, utterly desperate, the captain, Thomas Dudley, suggested drawing lots to determine who would be killed so that the others might survive by eating him. One man objected, and the plan was put off. The next day, however, the captain told the others to look away, offered a prayer, and slit the cabin boy's throat. Four days later, the crew spotted a ship "as we were having our breakfast," the captain later wrote. Back in England, two of the three survivors were charged with murder. By utilitarian logic—the greatest good for the greatest number—it's hard to object to the act. Yet many in the hall do object, and Sandel, stalking the stage, scanning the room, wants to know why. When one student suggests that the act would have been justified had the boy, Richard Parker, consented, Sandel replies, in an amused tone: "What would that scenario look like? Dudley is there, penknife in hand, but instead of the prayer, or before the prayer, he says, 'Parker, would you mind?'" Students seem to think the proposed lottery would have justified the killing. Sandel probes: Can a fair process sanction something so abhorrent? And what if the loser changes his mind after...
Words: 3984 - Pages: 16
...Case #1: Energy Cooperative Ethical Problems The Energy Cooperative is a nonprofit organization that provides education to the public in regards to energy, new technology, startup of new energy companies, and public forums on their website for blogs and complaints. They also provide new energy companies with a central hub to learn about new technologies, standards and regulations which are good for new companies to know. Kant, Mill, Locke, Rawls, and Kohlberg would have many different views and approaches based on their ethical theories. Energy cooperative’s dilemma is ethical and it has some conflict of interest. All members of the board have signed agreements that while serving on the board, they will act without bias and have no commitment to a specific corporation. The case states that the board members “must sign a statement to that effect before they are appointed”. The company needs to make it clear what the consequences are for not following the signed agreement they have. The first ethical problem is the misrepresentation. Because each director is calling as a director of the cooperative, his is misrepresenting his position to each client he calls. The Cooperative has no business dealing with the personal clients of the board members. This may make the personal clients feel that the cooperative supports their interest when they don’t have any desire too. The second problem is conflict of interest. The board members are acting as a consultant and should never mix...
Words: 1313 - Pages: 6
...Utilitarians measure the consequences arising from their actions, the Rule Utilitarians apply certain calculations, establishing the morality of these actions. Therefore they judge the rules by its consequences and their actions by their rules. In other words, Rule Utilitarianism is the theory that measures what is right or wrong morally based on how good or bad the consequences may be. 2. What do economists mean by the “declining marginal utility of money”? It’s just “another reason utilitarians tend to favor greater inequality of income.” (Shaw and Barry, pg.112). In simple words according to Shaw and Barry, Professor Richard Brandt, stated that our needs and wants come in order of preference. With our salary we get the things we want and most need and leave aside the items that we least need or want, giving us full pleasure for acquiring what we want and need in the first place. An addition to our income will make us get the extra stuff we least needed or wanted, making us less happy with these new additions. 3. Robert Nozick presents his entitlement theory as a function of three basic principles. What are these three basic principles? “The first principle of Nozick’s entitlement theory concerns the...
Words: 852 - Pages: 4
...BUS 309 WK 7 Quiz 6 Chapter 7 - All Possible Questions To Purchase Click Link Below: http://strtutorials.com/BUS-309-WK-7-Quiz-6-Chapter-7-All-Possible-Questions-BUS3097.htm BUS 309 WK 7 Quiz 6 Chapter 7 - All Possible Questions 1. Of the 18,000 objects orbiting Earth, how many are rubbish? 1. 12,000 2. 14, 100 3. 16,500 4. 17, 100 1. When was the Clean Water Act passed? 1. 1965 2. 1972 3. 1979 4. 1982 1. What proportion of U.S. waters fail to meet the 1972 standards for being safe for fishing and swimming? 1. 1/3 2. 2/3 3. 3/4 4. 4/5 1. How many pounds of hazardous materials enter the air each year? 1. 20 million 2. 90 milllion 3. 2 billion 4. 9 billion 1. Which gas is responsible for the greenhouse effect? 1. H2SO4 2. H2O 3. CO 4. CO2 1. How many tons of animal manure does the US generate each year? 1. 900 million 2. 1 billion 3. 1.4 billion 4. 2 billion 1. Which virus is responsible for the decline of the wolf population in Yellowstone Park? 1. Retrovirus 2. Herpesvirus 3. Parvovirus 4. Ebolavirus 2. The belief that natural resources are free and limitless encourages 1. Conservation 2. Preservation 3. Wasteful consumption of them 4. Waste management 1. Which industry exemplifies Hardin’s point about the tragedy of the commons? 1. Car manufacturing 2. International fishing 3. International steel production 4. Clothing manufacturing 1. How many gallons of water does it take to make an automobile? 1...
Words: 816 - Pages: 4
...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 a function of three basic principles. What are these three basic principles? • The first principle of Noziks’s entitles theory concern the original acquisition of holdings- that is, the appropriation of unheld goods or the creation of new goods. • Nozick’s second principle concerns transfers of already-owned goods from one person to another. • Nozcik’s third and final principle state that...
Words: 336 - Pages: 2
...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
...Equality is an idea that is good in theory. It makes people feel good to think that everyone is on the same level and no person is better than them. That idea, that no one can be better than another person, has flaws. There will always be someone that is just a little bit better than someone at something and that, sometimes, can make people scared. So, while people preach the idea that complete equality is best for everyone and no one person should be better than another; Kurt Vonnegut shows that complete equality can mean more than just equal pay and equal rights he shows that every person being equal on every level is not a good thing. In the short story, “Harrison Bergeron”, Vonnegut creates a theme portraying the message that for all to...
Words: 608 - Pages: 3
...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
...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
...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...
Words: 450 - Pages: 2
...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...
Words: 911 - Pages: 4
...© Michael Lacewing Ra wls a nd No zick on jus tic e RAWLS: JUSTICE AND THE SOCIAL CONTRACT John Rawls’ theory of distributive justice (A Theory of Justice) is based on the idea that society is a system of cooperation for mutual advantage between individuals. As such, it is marked by both conflicts between differing individual interests and an identity of shared interests. Principles of justice should ‘define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social co-operation’. (p. 4) Justice is the most important political value and applies to the ‘basic institutions of society’ – the political constitution and the institutions that regulate the market, property, family, freedom, and so on – because it is intimately connected to what society is and what it is for. If society is a matter of cooperation between equals for mutual advantage, the conditions for this cooperation need to be defended and any inequalities in social positions must be justified. And so the principles of justice, Rawls thinks, must be ‘the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association’ (p. 11). Justice, then, is fairness. What are the terms of the ‘social contract’? What principles of justice would we agree to in this situation? For our agreement to secure a fair, impartial procedure, we need to eliminate any possible bias towards, say...
Words: 2185 - Pages: 9
...John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John rawls John...
Words: 268 - Pages: 2
...Theory of Justice Analysis Michael Lemke 532 February 20, 2012 Scott Schoellkopf Theory of Justice Analysis People need to know what crime analysis is to ensure that the current justice analysis is in place to discuss the theory of justice. An emerging field in law enforcement is crime analysis. A criminal justice agency new to criminal analysis may have difficulties in determining its main focus. Crime analysis is the breaking point for people who commit acts in violation of laws. Philosophy and ethics comes into play to deal with fairness in the theory of justice analysis. This paper will begin with an explanation of some of the principles in how the theories differ from traditional utilitarianism. The second part of this paper will continue with the explanation of how modern criminal justice agencies and other entities define justice. This paper will conclude with how security defines justice. The state of nature from the political theorists of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau states that men were under the assumption of only thinking about themselves, and they did dedicate themselves to their own interests. “Hobbes proposed an autocracy that protects its citizens through its very existence, leaving them no enforceable rights; Locke advanced a liberal regime in which life, liberty, and property are kept safe from governmental discretion, as they are seen as natural human characters; and Rousseau saw politics itself as a remedy for the discontents of private...
Words: 1478 - Pages: 6
