...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 everyone much easier. The...
Words: 1310 - Pages: 6
...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. This holds true even under the veil of ignorance. The ‘original position’ defined by Rawls is the only...
Words: 486 - 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 by...
Words: 911 - Pages: 4
...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
...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
...Governance and management Quality can be enhanced by better management practices, transparency in the use of resources, and accountability mechanisms to communities and other stakeholders. Mechanisms for promoting ownership and accountability through participatory planning deserve increased attention. Issues of governance go beyond ensuring better management of the public sector. They include a concern for increasing ownership by different stakeholders at different levels. One strand of the research focuses on centralization/decentralization to answer questions about what responsibilities within education systems (such as recruitment of teachers, control of budgets, design of curricula) are most appropriately located at national, provincial, district and/or school levels in countries of different sizes and cultures. The research also takes into consideration the distribution of responsibilities within particular levels, e.g. at the national level between national ministries of basic education, higher education, finance, planning, etc. A second strand focuses on management of skills development and training. Expansion of opportunities for young people who have completed basic education does not imply exclusive attention to traditional models of formal education. Attention is given to alternative models and to non-formal modes which can serve out-of-school youths. Learners in modes of post-basic education pay attention to the demands of the labour market. This requires...
Words: 6320 - Pages: 26
...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 his place in society, his class position or social...
Words: 2174 - Pages: 9
...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 be completely equal some must be handicapped from reaching their full potential. Vonnegut shows that handicaps are not only mental, but also physical and both can be harmful for someone’s potential to grow as a person. In the beginning of the story Vonnegut says, “A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic…” (195) “They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face…” (Vonnegut 195) Vonnegut uses these examples while talking about George Bergeron and the ballerinas on the T.V and how they wear mental and physical handicaps to hold them back from being graceful; and wear masks to keep people from being intimidated by their...
Words: 608 - Pages: 3
...United States, an astonishing 80% of the poll agreed that the legalization of marijuana should be put into effect (St. Pierre 1). One philosopher who would probably side with this 80% is John Rawls, the creator of the “Theory of Justice”. In his theory, Rawls states that we, as a society, should treat things with a veil of ignorance. This meaning to work out the basic principles in a society, one should pretend that they know nothing about our social classes, laws, or anything else (Rawls 12). The specs on marijuana would suggest it is harmless, but it is natural that for every argument against the legalization of marijuana, there is an argument for it. Face it; marijuana’s prohibition in the United States has not stopped its production, possession, or recreational use. This fact leaves many scratching their heads as to why the substance has not yet been legalized. John Rawls, a great American philosopher, would have, most likely, been against the idea of marijuana being illegal. In his main work, the “Theory of Justice”, Rawls pushes hard for a just government and a just society. He argues that not knowing the position of our society on certain issues, along with some pretend ignorance, would lead us to make better decisions (Rawls 13). Along with the “Theory of Justice”, Rawls also created...
Words: 1503 - Pages: 7
...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
...© 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
...A Theory of Justice Rawls In 1985, John Rawls published his essay A Theory of Justice in which he defined social justice by applying social contract approach and introducing a hypothetical state – the Original Position with veil of ignorance. First of all, Rawls believed that the principles of justice should help society to govern its structure and protect the rights of everyone in the society. Then Rawls proposed the idea that justice can be called “fairness”. Since he claimed that the principles of justice should be decided in advance in order to regulate the society more efficiently, a group of chosen people must determine the set of principles of justice. Given the importance of such task, there is no doubt that the group of chosen people ought to have the knowledge in relative fields and the capacity to think rationally in order to make the best decisions, if not for anyone else, at least for themselves. In this case, we refer to the participant with rationality a rational agent. If we assumed that every party were a rational agent, we are, in fact, acknowledging that rational agent would determine the principles of justice with the purpose of maximizing benefits for him and for people with similar background based on the given status quo and specific traits of society he is currently living in. Hence, if we only choose people who are rational, we would face two problems including constant argument, which would fail to deliver any reasonable agreement when rational...
Words: 1288 - Pages: 6
... B. Statement of the Problem C. Significance of the Study D. Theoretical Framework E. Scope and Limitation F. Review of Related Literature CHAPTER TWO: JOHN RAWLS PHILOSOPHY A. Biography of John Rawls CHAPTER THREE: PHILIPPINE TAXATION A. Concept of Taxation B. Nature of Taxation and Its purpose C. Concept of Income Taxation D. Purpose of Taxation E. Current Uses of Taxation CHAPTER FOUR: SOCIAL JUSTICE IN TAXATION A. Social Justice B. Principles of Justice C. Well Ordered Society D. Original Position E. Veil of Ignorance F. Civil Disobedience CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION A. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT The works of John Rawls was basically centered on justice as depicted on his work “Theory of Justice” and “Political Liberalism. John Rawls is considered to be one of the most influential philosophers during his time as he specialized in the concept of justice and fairness as a tool for attaining social justice in the society. His works received various criticisms since it may be viewed as unrealistic but though it may be criticized, his works are one of the influential and most bought book and already translated in various language to be used as curriculum in philosophy classes. Rawls differentiate the concept of justice and fairness as he tried to show that the idea of justice is fairness and in justice we can be assured that equalities can be achieved in a society...
Words: 13013 - Pages: 53
...community and the organization. This paper will briefly compare and contrast the various theories of economic Justice of Fairness, Distributive Justice, Utilitarianism, Capitalism and Morality, and Socialism; and reveal the one theory I believe to be the most practical; and the best theory of economic justice as it applies to the “fairness in hiring and promotions, and employees’ rights and duties.” Justice of Fairness includes components of the Principle of Liberty that every one deserve the right to basic liberties; and the Principle of Equality falls in line with the distributive justice for social and economic liberties to be arranged so that they are the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and fair equality of opportunity. Rawls’ point of view on the Justice as Fairness is to be fair and impartial in making decisions about fundamental principles of justice. In order to adopt this point of view is to insure impartiality of judgment, remove any knowledge of personal general...
Words: 1904 - 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
