Theory of Justice (Rawls

In: Philosophy and Psychology

Submitted By websterloeffler
Words 328
Pages 2
Equality is something that we try to depend we all strive for. In reality equality is, in most people’s opinions, an extremely unfair goal when it comes to financial equality. It may seem like a double standard to some but in fact it is not. This subject can be looked at from three different points of view the first being individuals who are hard workers and still can’t seem to thrive. It is this group who really suffer the most, fairness to them would them having the same 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…...

Similar Documents

Rawls

...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 Rawls....

Words: 271 - Pages: 2

Six Theories of Justice

...Philosophical Views of Justice We hold these truths to be self–evident, That all men are created equal, That they are endowed by their Creator With certain unalienable Rights, That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.– That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. In today’s society, people have choices. They have the choice to believe in whomsoever they wish and live their lives according to their own morals and values. People, as stated in the above excerpt of the Declaration of Independence, have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are three main philosophical views on justice that drive our lives; they are Utilitarianism, Social Contract Theory and Entitlement Theory. These theories have some similar aspects as well as differences which set them apart. Each person must choose the view that best fits them and live their lives accordingly. The theory of Utilitarianism was brought forth from the minds of Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick and G.E. Moore. Although it is one of the older theories, its attributes are still seen today in market economies and “cost-benefit analysis”. It is a simple theory which relies on few principles; the great happiness principle states that actions are just as long as they promote happiness, not only in ourselves but in others as well. This presents two principles for......

Words: 1235 - Pages: 5

Theory of Justice Analysis

...Theory of Justice Analysis Conception and reality often clash when applied to everyday. In the most optimal society justice is served by punishing criminals so that law abiding citizens can live their lives in peace. The reality is that criminals receive punishments that are less than justice demands and the non-criminals are cheated. This short paper examines justice theories, the utilitarian view, modern justice view and the security based justice. It is important to consider individual justice, mob justice and societal justice as separate institutions. To better understand these institutions the next section explains justice theories. Justice Theories In this section two types of justice will be discussed: Rawl's Theory of Justice as Fairness and Libertarianism. Rawls focused on a hypothetical model in order to describe his form of justice. In this hypothetical model individuals are required to choose fundamental principles of basic institutions of a given society (Ilstu). The result choices made by the members of this society will be both fair and just. The two principles are as follows: Equal Liberty and Difference. "The Equal Liberty Principle states each person is to have the maximum civil liberties compatible with the same liberty for all (Ilstu)". These would be the principles of the United States Constitution; all American citizens are privileged to receive full civil liberties based on the laws of the land. "The Difference Principle states......

Words: 1221 - Pages: 5

Rawls Theory of Justice

...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......

Words: 911 - Pages: 4

Six Theories of Justice

...have been a subject of much interest, speculation and study among Westerners. Many theories have been put forward concerning these religions. The Westerners who took an interest in these religions have been divided into two major categories, namely, Early and Later Western writers. Some scholars are advocating a third category – contemporary Western writers. RATIONALE FOR THE INTEREST 1. According to E.E. Evans-Pritchard, (Theories of Primitive Religions, 1965), Western scholars were interested in Religions of Africa because Africans were considered to be “primitive” and “primitive” people had primitive religions which are the species of the genus religions. They are the mothers of all world religions. 2. According to J. G. Platvoet, (ed, et al) (The study of Religions in Africa, Past, Present and Prospects, 1996), the interest was generated by the need to spread Christianity. 3. The same scholar is of the opinion that these writers wanted to provide information to colonial governments about the colonised so that they could govern them effectively. 4. Some were just interested in writing about Africans and their religions. EXAMPLES OF EARLY WESTERN WRITERS 1. Edward B. Tylor - Wrote the book, Primitive Culture, 1973, in which he stressed the importance of the soul and propounded the theory of animism. This theory attributed spirit or soul to all creatures both animate and inanimate. This theory was then applied to religions of Africa. 2. James Frazer, The Golden Bough,......

Words: 829 - Pages: 4

Criminal Justice Theory

...Classical criminology theory materialized during the second half of the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries during the Enlightenment era in Europe. Theorists set out to study the relationship of citizens to the state’s legal structure. Classical criminology views criminal conduct as a matter of human nature and believed that all human beings have free will to engage in an act (Barak, Leighton, Flavin, 2010). Early philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, believed that the guide to conduct is a balance between pain and pleasure. In other words, the punishment was to fit the crime (Raymond Paternoster, 2010). Viewing punishment as a deterrent, classical theorist believed employing severe punishment to deter potential offenders who outweighed the pleasure of crime versus the pain of the punishment. Classical theory has been a elemental part of the legal and economic thought as well as influencing the degree of punishment and sentencing in the society (Barak, Leighton, Flavin, 2010). Within criminology the classical school's importance diminished as positivist explanations of criminal behavior emerged and became dominant. However, most modern criminal justice systems have never rejected free will explanations of criminal behavior. In the United States, the classical model has been encouraged more by the system in which it is implanted than by positivism. The classical model has re-emerged in criminology as the "justice model" and rational choice explanations. The......

Words: 488 - Pages: 2

Types of Justice as Outlined in the Ralsian Theory

...Justice is another important ethical standard. Justice involves protecting individual rights, or preventing an injustice to an individual. Justice also requires us to compare cases to avoid discriminating or treating people differently who are alike in relevant respects. Succinctly, it means treating people fairly. Issues involving questions of justice and fairness are usually divided into three categories, that of distributive justice, retributive justice and compensatory justice. Distributive justice, a theory based on writings of John Rawls, perhaps the most basic category, is concerned with the fair distribution of society’s benefits and burdens. Rawls felt that everything must be done in an act of achieving fairness throughout. He also did not want anything to be done that may hurt or damage another person. For example, Rawls felt that throughout a society, every demographic should be allowed the same treatment and goods as any other. The poor should receive the same health care as the rich, etc. (Lamont, 2002). Questions of distributive justice arise when different people put forth conflicting claims on society’s benefits and burdens and all the claims cannot be satisfied. The essential cases are those where there is a insufficiency of benefits such as jobs, food, housing, medical care, wealth and income as compared with the numbers and desires of the people who want these goods. The other side of the coin is that there may be too many burdens, that of......

Words: 1677 - Pages: 7

Why Does Mills Think That Utilitarianism Provides the Foundation for Justice and Why Does Rawls Reject It?

...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......

Words: 3508 - Pages: 15

A Theory of Justice

...A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls Tier III 415A Home Page A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971. This outline of an extended book review is based in large part on notes composed by Darrell Huwe. I have attempted with limited success to understand Rawls' book - please do not regard this as being in any sense an authoritative summary of Rawls' thought. I personally find this book particularly difficult to penetrate, perhaps because my training is in the physical sciences rather than philosophy, and I generalize quite beyond the evidence when I suspect that others also find it less than accessible. I hope that this review is helpful. The Chronicle of Higher Education has published an article, "The Enduring Significance of John Rawls", by Martha Nussbaum. John Rawls died at age 81 on November 24, 2002. Dick Piccard General Conception All social primary goods - liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored. Social Contract John Locke: Free people need to agree on some ground rules in order to live together in harmony. Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham: Act so as to maximize good (pleasure) in the aggregate. Later twist: minimize pain. From either perspective, your actions are judged good or bad depending on the consequences they have for you and...

Words: 1539 - Pages: 7

Compensatory Discrimination in Light of Theories of Justice

...Discrimination in Light of Theories Of Justice INTRODUCTION In a civilized social system, law plays not only the role of guarantor of justice equality and liberty, but also as a tool for attaining the ends of justice. In this respect the modern democratic state has to adopt objective standards to protect the human rights of its citizens. Equality is one among those cardinal human rights by which the State is mandated to treat the equals equally and unequal unequally when it distributes its own benefits to the people. But who are equals and who are unequal is a thorny issue, for the limited resources are much valuable and required by the various group of people and they have to be distributed justly and fairly. In the Indian constitutional scheme, it had been envisaged by the framers that there should be equality of opportunity is for all citizens in public employments and such equality of opportunity a fundamental right of the citizens’.At the same time, the need for some beneficial treatment to the weaker sections of the society was also enshrined with that right. What is the basis of distribution of societal resources to certain sections? The thrust of this Chapter goes with the following enquiry. Is there any jurisprudential foundation for protective discrimination? If so what is it? This aspect is assessed from the angle of different theories of justice viz., social justice, distributive justice, equality and equal opportunity and social engineering theory. The......

Words: 7969 - Pages: 32

A Theory of Justice

...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......

Words: 1288 - Pages: 6

Rawls’s and Nozick’s Theory on Distributive Justice

...0952232 This essay will compare and then contrast two distributive justice theories. First this essay will demonstrate how Rawls’s theory will affect the society and its structure in terms of basic social institutions, wealth distribution and major economic limits and opportunities. Then, the essay will demonstrate the same for Nozick’s theory on distributive justice. I will then describe, in which society I would prefer to live in and why. In my understanding John Rawls bases his theory on the veil of ignorance. It’s an imaginative situation that puts all rational people together and lets them make decisions on the justice structure of society without being effected by power or any other influences coming from other people. Having that in mind, all people under the veil of ignorance make decisions with out knowing the results, what place they will take in society and what advantage or privilege that person would have. Based on this, Rawls states that all people will choose two basic but main principles. First is the principle of liberty and freedom. Under which all people have the same rights to the maximum freedom. And secondly Rawls states, that it’s ok to have inequality, as long as those who are better of will somehow benefit those who are least well of. This according to Rawls will minimize the maximum, allowing to “close the gap”. (Shaw, Barry, & Sansbury, 2009) This will be possible according to Rawls as all rational, self-interested people will seek to......

Words: 1604 - Pages: 7

Theory of Justice

... A THEORY OF JUSTICE A THEORY OF JUSTICE Revised Edition JOHN RAWLS the belknap press of harvard university press cambridge, massachusetts © Copyright 1971, 1999 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America This book is a revised edition of A Theory of Justice, published in 1971 by Harvard University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rawls, John, 1921– A theory of justice / John Rawls. — Rev. ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-674-00077-3 (cloth : alk. paper). — ISBN 0-674-00078-1 (paper : alk. paper) 1. Justice. I. Title. JC578.R38 1999 320Ј.01Ј1—dc21 99-29110 For Mard CONTENTS Contents PREFACE FOR THE REVISED EDITION PREFACE xi xvii Part One. Theory CHAPTER I. JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 3 The Role of Justice 3 The Subject of Justice 6 The Main Idea of the Theory of Justice 10 The Original Position and Justification 15 Classical Utilitarianism 19 Some Related Contrasts 24 Intuitionism 30 The Priority Problem 36 Some Remarks about Moral Theory 40 CHAPTER II. THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 47 Institutions and Formal Justice 47 Two Principles of Justice 52 Interpretations of the Second Principle 57 Democratic Equality and the Difference Principle 65 Fair Equality of Opportunity and Pure Procedural Justice Primary......

Words: 254526 - Pages: 1019

Juvenille Justice Theory

...Linda D. Jefferson Fall /2016 Professor John Padgett PS4115 – Juvenile Justice Practice April, 2015 Teen at Center Of Juvenile Crime Debate Trying juveniles as adults is a highly debated and controversial area of concern among law enforcement experts, the criminal justice system, and juvenile advocates. I remember a case that happen in Florida. Lionel Tate was accused of murdering his neighbor child that his mother was babysitting. This was a very highly controversy case, based on his age at the time of 12 years. My case study research was done on the case of Lionel Tate. Lionel was charged with and sentence as an adults to life in prison at the age of fourteen. Lionel Tate, who has been sentenced to life in prison without parole in the wrestling death of his 6-year-old playmate. Under Florida law, Tate faced a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole for his conviction on first-degree murder charges. Tate, who was 12 when he killed 6-year-old Tiffany Eunick, who faces an adult trial under Florida law had been being punished under strong laws designed to deter other juveniles from committing similar crimes. Some believe that the punishment was too harsh and it would deter other juveniles from committing such crimes. Tate: Case Study of a Failing System? Tate was tried as an adult under a 1981 Florida statute that gave prosecutors discretion as to whether to charge juveniles as adults. Florida is one......

Words: 824 - Pages: 4

Theory of Justice Analysis

...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

SILVER!! (1) ONE Troy Pound LB U.S. Mixed Silver Coins Lot No Junk Pre-1965$124.86 13d left | HD Blue World Order | Nokia Keyboards