The questions of the whether social inequality is justified and the extent of government to address said inequality are some of the foundations upon which societies and economies are built. Two key philosophers on this issue – John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau – differ on this subject. In Two Treatises on Government, Locke holds that individuals have a right to property derived from their labor, citizens consent to the existence of inequality in society, and governments are instituted among men to protect said property. In contrast, Rousseau writes in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and The Social Contract that inequality should be strictly limited and that governments have a duty to act in the best interest of its citizens by maintaining
Rawls’ first principle of justice outlines that social institutions in a just society must aim for maximum equal liberty (Rawls, p. 82). His second principle, the difference principle, justifies inequality, but only when it maximally benefits those who are worse off (Rawls, pp. 65-66). Rawls ‘acknowledges that these principles are an oversimplification of distributive justice, but believes they should be applied to the basic structures of society (Rawls, p. 77). Rawls acknowledges that there needs to be regulations on when civil disobedience is justifiable.
A rather simple solution would be to pass a law mandating that all employers pay their workers equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender. If the employers failed to compensate their workers accordingly, then they could face some form of punishment, such as a fine. In addition to this, the various states could pass individual laws to shore up the national one to make certain that corporations and their owners adhere to fairer, more equal standards of pay. As with most social issues, the gender pay gap will not be fully addressed by our lawmakers until we, collectively, come together and demand that our representatives change the economic and social systems
One of several reasons is that social justice can be found in almost all types of governments. By common definition, social justice is about assuring the protection of equal access to liberties, rights, and opportunities, as well as taking care of the least advantaged members of society (John Rawls, 1971). According to Rawls, social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation. The relevant institutions often include taxation, social insurance, public health, public school, public services, labour law and regulation of markets, to ensure fair distribution of wealth, equal opportunity and equality of outcome. Basing upon this John Rawls’ theory, social justice can be applied in democratic, socialist or communist countries.
If the goal is to create a society in which marginalized groups are equal citizens, then Social Work has an obligation to demand a moral-system that resonates with that objective. There must be a communal (collective) account of injustice, unfairness or oppression for any government-enforced redistribution or effort for reform to be rendered equally or indiscriminately. Without an emphasis on interdependence, a caring society, empathy, and intersectionality, Social Work’s assistance or governmental interventions in people of colors’ communities cannot truly be anti-oppressive, but rather temporary solutions to intergenerational inequality, crises, disparities and social
Both political theorists are extreme in their visions and neither seem entirely attainable but they are both inspiring ideals of what society could achieve. Although Arendt makes a very persuasive argument for economics and freedom as separate from one another, Marx’s argument is more convincing. Socialism presents every individual with the opportunity to live the best life suited for their own creative development. If every individual is creating what they want to create and the benefit of their creation goes towards the entire community than there is no reason for economic classes. The idea of socialism and communism may be slightly unrealistic and challenging to implement but in a utopian society, Marx’s view of the political structure is ideal.
According to theory the outcomes will be judged weather the action was morally right or wrong. As per this theory the outcome of any action should minimize the pain and maximize the pleasure. The utilitarianism have two groups one is the Act utilitarian’s focun on the effects of individual actions (Such as Nathuram Godse’s assassination of Mahatma Gandhi) and another is rule utilitarian’s those focus on the effects of types of actions (such as killing or stealing) Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). They reject moral codes or systems that consist of commands or taboos that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders
Rawls attempts to provide a good account of social justice through the social contract approach. This approach says that a society is in some sense is an agreement amount all those who make up the society. In the analogy Rawls shows his disagrements and gives solutions or what he things is a more just way of doing such things. Rawls starts off by saying “I believe that the contrast between the contract view and utilitarianism remains essentially the same in all these cases. There fore I shall compare justice as fairness with familiar variants of intuitionism, perfectionism, and utilitarianism in order to bring out the underlying difference in the simplest way.” Rawls strongly opposes utilitarianism.
He states that “POLITICAL POWER, then, I take to be a RIGHT of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defense of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good” (Locke 3). He means the government tends to abuse the political power to make laws that they claim is only for the public good but in reality benefit themselves. He goes further to state that “The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property” (Locke 12). Locke is saying that the land is claimed based on who put the work into maintaining and laboring over it.
In several different ways, the principle of equality of opportunity is relevant to the criminal justice system in the twenty-first century. John Rawls “assumes that we are self-interested, rational beings motivated to select laws, rules, and ways-of-life that are most advantageous to ourselves” (p. 117). The principle of equality is a theory that we all wish truly existed; however, it is unfortunate that it does not exist due to our own personal biases. Unconsciously, we all have biased and prejudicial thoughts—we are human and this tends to result on a reality based on social values; however, it does not make it correct. Unfortunately, we have not all learned to put our differences aside in order to get along.