Rawls’ hypothetical scenario, however, is not factual, nor does it pose meaningful applicability to our present situation. If we would apply the original contract to present day society, this would consequently unavoidably and unfairly derive people from things they
The equality principle, is fundamental and logically prior to the difference principle. The equal liberty principle defines justice as encompassing all the things we have taken for granted in a democratic society. The difference principle is different in the sense that it insists that whereas the distribution of income and wealth “need not be equal, it must be to everyone’s advantage and at the same
But what it lacks is a solution to an unjust or a non-ideal society. The Ideal Theory lays down the following principles: i) Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all. ii) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions. First, they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality; and second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. The first part of the second principle is concerned with the institutional requirement of making sure that public opportunities are open to all, without anyone being
Information is first received to identify all possible response to a dilemma. An individual recognizes and examines whether the choices are unethical or not and then evaluate the possible benefits to be gained and the possible costs to be paid. Ethical dilemma arises when there is conflict between personal ethics and social ethics. For instance, ethical dilemma exists in situations that a wrong decision is likely to produce a positive outcome or that a right decision is likely to produce a negative outcome (Fletcher, n.d.). Ethical decision-making can only be justified in the notion that the individual is ethically sensitive and rational because a person is unable to acknowledge the responsibility of certain behaviors without awareness of morality and
Theory of Justice Analysis A person’s actions and consequences of those behaviors may not only affects self but also have effects on the lives of others. Depending on the ultimate goal of a person’s activities and the type of activities, the ethics of such actions may be geared either towards addressing the actions or towards addressing the outcomes of these actions. Based on the intentions and outcomes of the ethical guidelines they provide, there are four primary classes of ethics including relativism, virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism (Tilley, 2005). Rawls’ Theory of Justice aims at overcoming the shortcomings of virtue, consequence, duty, and relativism brought about by other ethical approaches by eliminating various factors that influence decision-making. Theory of Justice
When the defendant’s wrong does not fit in any of these pigeon holes he is said to have committed no tort. Hence this theory of Salmond is also known as pigeon hole theory. However the theory of pigeon hole has been criticized by the latter writers as they feel this theory, if accepted, will put an end to the growth and evolution of the new categories of liability in tort and the Courts could be prevented from identifying any new torts based on the violation of the legal rights of a person. Torts are infinitely various and not limited and confined. The novelty of claim may arise and Court may recognize a novel claim.
Rawls himself talks about justice as free and equal persons cooperating and agreeing to certain terms in fair conditions, hence the term “justice as fairness” . This notion revolves around the allocation of goods in society. Immanuel Kant is a theorists whom Rawls would’ve been inspired by, particularly when evaluating political and social institutions . Rawls argues individuals would support the notion of distributive justice concerning the equal distribution of goods if it involved elements of fairness and neutrality. In other words, if every individual was equal from when they were brought into the world they would vow for an equal distribution of goods.
Many a time the management is faced with a dilemma when making decisions. In principle, decisions must be ethical to prevent negative setbacks to organizations and managers. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University through Velasquez et al (2009), highlights the process of ethical decision-making; i) Recognition of ethical issues during choice making between alternatives. ii) Getting the facts about the case iii) Evaluation of alternative actions so that the choice will produce the best benefits and least harm, the choice will respect the rights of stakeholders and the option must treat the involved parties proportionately or equally. This is a utilitarian-rights-justice approach.
The First Principle states that each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all. The Second Principle requires that social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions; firstly that they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity, and secondly that they are to be the maximum benefit of the least-advantaged members of the society (the difference principle). The fulfillment of the first principle takes over the fulfillment of the second one and the first principle of equal liberties is to be used for designing the political constitution while the second one relates mainly to economic
2. Adapted from Egmond & Bruel (2007) 188.8.131.52 Limitation of Theory of Planned Behaviour Although the Theory of Planned Behaviour provided researchers with a theoretical model for understanding individual’s intention and predicting the behaviour, Godin and Kok (1996) had found out the limitation of the theory itself which affecting the efficiency of the theory. They discovered that the TPB does not take factors such as personality demographic variables into consideration; and it is too ambiguous to define the variable “perceived behavioral control” and hence it is different to establish the measurement scale. In addition, Godin and Kok (1996) also commented that the TPB limited in the assumption that perceived behaviour control predicts actual behavioural control but it is seldom appeared in the previous literatures. At the same time, the TPB did not take the time interval between intention and behaviour into account but it actually affect the chance of the behaviour performed.