The concept of varna is based on the rational classification of the society into four groups according to the intellectual and physical capabilities, the four classes are brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya and sudra. Just like this the individual life is also divided into 4 ashrams- brahmacharya, grhastha, vanaprastha and sanyasa. Manu said that it throught he social order based on varna and ashrama that all the goals of a society as well as individual can be achieved. The ancient Indian legislators created policies for the welfare of all and the systems of varna and ashrama helped them in striking a balance between the societal and individual interest. The “varnashrama-dhrma” had two fold aims.
For negative freedom, it is the sphere of control and for positive freedom it is the question of who is in control (129). The driving question for “positive” political freedom is “what or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that” (Berlin, 122). This sense of political freedom requires a person being his own master and not relying on any outside influence (131). Positive political freedom is about man thinking for ones self and deciding for ones self, thereby establishing who they are to the world, on their own accord. Rationality and reason are also central to this sense of political freedom.
“Realm of Ends” formulation of the categorical imperative, states that we must “act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for merely possible kingdom of ends.” (4:439) It acts as a social contract. Kant further explains it that “a rational being belongs as a member of the kingdom of ends when he gives universal laws in it but is also himself subject to those laws.” (4:434) Being subject to a law does not contradict with the concept of a rational being as an end in itself, because it is not like a slavery since it is not subject to arbitrary will. Just the opposite, since it draws central points from the first and second formulation, “the will of a member could regard itself as at the same time giving universal law through its maxim” (4:434) and no member will see another member as a mere mean. On the other hand, autonomy is not equal to self-mastery. For Kant, it is essentially social.
He believes that we are all created equal and by virtue of the laws of nature and justification, we have the right to exercise our force and align our resources to ensure we thrive in the best conditions possible. His development of the social contract theory and the formation of civil polities is based on the realization that as time changes, an individual man’s resources become lesser than the force required to sustain his life in the state of nature. Since man cannot create new force, the only way to ensure to ensure peaceful co-existence is to pool forces and resources and establish a unit of control of the balance between the rights and responsibilities of the people through a social
The original position is a key point of Rawls’ theory of justice to set up the position for establish the principle of justice. This principle of justice is the fundamental principle to create well-ordered society which has equality and liberty. Rawls develop a theory of justice by revise the traditional social contract. He began with this statement to show his assumption “My aim is to present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract as found, say, in Locke, Rousseau, and Kant” Rawls considered Kant is also contractarian because of contract tradition which is a part of moral of justice and to create political society by social contract. Rawls tried to take the social contract more higher or more abstract than tradition approach, he called “the original position” this is a condition that Rawls took it as an appropriate for the choice to choose the fundamental principle of justice for the society.
The possession of such rights by individuals is linked to the possession of some natural property. Natural property being the condition for a human right in these theories there is necessarily some form of realistic epistemology. This can be seen in the doctrine of equal right of all men to be free Modern human rights are also associated with the natural law theory; one chief exponent being John Locke through his philosophy the age of enlightment. He imagined human beings in a state of nature. In that state men and women were in a state of freedom, able to determine their actions and also in a state of equality in the sense that no one was subjected to the will or authority of another.
They both advocate that humans should live according to what they believe is natural. Locke once again advocates for organized government and goes on to develop this in saying, “The first and fundamental natural law is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society and, as far as will agree with the public good of every person in it.” (Locke, Of Civil Government, in CWT, 77). The content provided here from Locke’s Of Civil Government serves to prioritize the good of the people, and support a legislative system that represents his beliefs in what is natural. This system is created for the people and it supports independence, private property, and other key tenants of his philosophy. Rousseau advocates for a much simpler system of living reliant only upon land and the resources nature provides: “As long as men were content with their rustic huts, as long as they confined themselves to sewing their garments of skin with thorns or fish bones…so long as they applied themselves only to work that one person could accomplish alone… they lived as free, healthy, good and happy men…”(Rousseau, On the Origin of Inequality among Men, in CWT, 139).
The Hindu social order is not centered on the individual’s merit rather it recognizes class or Varna. It has four classes namely Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. Today there is also a fifth class below Shudras which is known as Panchamas or Untouchables. According to Vedas, different classes originated from different parts of the divinity. The Brahmins from the mouth, Kshatriyas from the arms, Vaishyas
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls describes justice as “the first virtue of social institutions”, and as a matter of fairness. He sets out his aim for a theory building on the social contract idea, as a feasible alternative to classical utilitarian conceptions of justice (Rawls, 1971, p. 3). In seeking an alternative to utilitarianism, Rawls argues against what he regards as the prevailing dominant theory. He comments that in the utilitarian view of justice “it does not matter, except indirectly, how the sum of satisfactions is distributed among individuals” (Idis, p. 23). In other words, utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between individuals (categorizing everyone in one branch).
One is the emphasis given on individualism. An individual sovereign entity is considered as the supreme entity. An individual is recognized as born equal and understood as entity composed of reason an has the ability to make rational decisions. She/he has the ability to master his own character and can take decision fo the betterment of life. In this context the society should be constructed in a way that give space to develop and individual.