...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
...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
...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 a “battlefield” where the philosophical bigwigs...
Words: 3508 - Pages: 15
...towards a different approach. There will always be organizations more concern about the financial interest of the shareholders than the consumer; however, there is now a growing interest among US companies to corporate social responsibility as a way to benefit both the 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
...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. Lockean constraints 3. Side bars 4. Liberty constraints 1. Nozick calls his theory of justice the 1. Welfare theory 2. Lockean theory 3. Absolute theory 4. Entitlement theory 1. Locke held that individuals are entitled to 1. The products of a welfare state 2. What they can acquire 3. What they possess 4...
Words: 727 - Pages: 3
...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
...| 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
...The Theory of Justice Bubba Irving AJS/500 September 30, 2013 Sonny Eastern The Theory of Justice The theory if justice is simply a theory of philosophy and ethics. John Rawls tried to come up with a concept of socially just and fair distribution of goods in society. Rawls argued the principles of working fair and equality for everyone. The social contract tradition was in view, but Rawls took on a different perspective and view. Rawls emphasized the principle of the veil of ignorance, and this specific belief was to blind people about the facts concerning themselves and not able to bring simple principles unto their own understanding. This causes ignorance and ignorance simply is the lack of understanding or knowledge concerning a topic. According to Rawls “ignorance of these details about one will lead to principles that are fair to all” (Rawls p. 11 1971). Rawls also states if an individual does not finish he will end up in his own conceived society, he is likely not going to privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly (Rawls p. 11. 1971). In this paper some of the principles of justice theories will be put into effect. Explaining in the paper also theory along with the principles of traditional utilitarianism, and the difference between them. Defining justice and the way modern criminal justice agencies define justice will be put in perspective. Finally the difference in...
Words: 1056 - Pages: 5
...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
...© 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
...Social justice: a key for Utopian society. An Utopian society is a concept that was developed by Thomas moore in 1516; which stands for the fact of having a perfect and ideal society where there is no terrorism, corruption, or crime and in which it exists an economic, social and political justice that makes all the population equal in rights and wealth distribution. To start, an utopian society cannot be achieved easily. The state should go through many political, social, and economical reforms and sacrifices. In this paper; I will be dealing with one specific topic; which is the social justice and how it can help forming a democratic society where equality and solidarity principles exist. In addition; I will focus on some principles such as human rights and property distribution within the society. To develop this term “social justice”; we should first try to define it. Social justice means creating a society with principles that consist of solidarity; human rights respect, and providing an acceptable social life conditions. It means also the freedom of access to all goods and services provided by the government. First of all; social justice derives from different religious roots and perspectives, Judaism agrees about its importance in people’s lives and its positive impact on their religious beliefs and practices. Moreover; Christianity focuses on people’s dignity as an essential tool of justice, also Christianity insists on helping poor people because they suffer more to...
Words: 1051 - Pages: 5
...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. Lockean constraints 3. Side bars 4. Liberty constraints 1. Nozick calls his theory of justice the 1. Welfare theory 2. Lockean theory 3. Absolute theory 4. Entitlement theory 1. Locke held that individuals are entitled to 1. The products of a welfare state 2. What they can acquire 3. What they possess 4...
Words: 727 - Pages: 3
...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: 3177 - Pages: 13
...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
...Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance Rawls assumes that behind the veil of ignorance one would select the best decision that adheres to the two principals of justice. However, the lack of knowledge provided behind the veil of ignorance seems to do more harm than good to the decision maker. For example, if one behind the veil were to choose their economic system for their society; they might have a hard time selecting between a free market or socialized economy based off of simple facts. Though both have been practiced in reality it is not entirely possible to truly understand which competing scenario works the best for all participants given the amount of sample time and other factors that have influenced economics for the past 100 years. Therefore, from a rawlsian perspective one would not know which system provides the better benefits least advantaged. Behind the veil of ignorance one would only know the general facts about the world that they are entering, and even the restriction on the lack of knowledge of one’s personal place with in the system would not do much to solve the problem without more concise data, which is prohibited behind the veil. The lack of specific data handicaps the decision maker behind the veil of ignorance, potentially leading them to selecting the least right decision for their society. Even with reflective equilibrium this would allow decision makers unknowingly break the second principal of justice, thus unraveling his argument, as to truly understand the...
Words: 707 - Pages: 3
