Utilitarianism: John Rawls's Theory Of Justice

In A Theory of Justice, Rawls aim to justify the principles of justice as fairness by reference to individual rational choice. He grounds his view on the ideas on “society as a fair system of cooperation” and of “citizens as free and equal persons” (Rawls 1995:11). Acknowledging that people have diverse interests, the tries to answer to how they can reach an agreement in matters of justice. The conception of justice as fairness is important in order to understand the logic of principle of justice. In this hypothetical situation of equal liberty, Raws states that free and equal persons concerned to further their own interests define the fundamental terms of their association.

Moreover, they are intended to work as a single conception of justice – ‘Justice as Fairness’. These principles are always applied to ensure that the “least advantaged” are not forgotten.4 Sandel on the other hand presents his ideas with real life dilemmas and introduces three major schools of thought about justice: the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill; the deontological, rights-based theories of Kant and Rawls and; the theological ethics of Aristotle. Sandel promotes his principles of justice in his book by demonstrating the inadequacies of the first two principles so that we are led to prefer the third. He gave the least consideration to Bentham’s utilitarianism and rejects any

Existentialism finds the answer to the absurdities present in the world including issues about human freedom. Dudley (ND) averred that Kant’s idea of freedom is inclusive than the libertarian thought. Further, Kant illuminated that choices are determined by autonomous will and are not subject to restrictions. Likewise, there is freedom of the will and that will is subject to the condition of genuine freedom of choice. Kant wrote the Metaphysics of Ethics (1797) where he described his ethical system that is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality.

Rawls assumes that the society in question is under reasonably favourable conditions: that there are enough resources for it to be possible for everyone 's basic needs to be met. Rawls makes the assumption that the society is self-sufficient .He confines his attention mainly to ideal theory, leaving questions such as those of criminal justice out... Rawls obtains his account of primary goods based on the idea that all citizens are equal. Primary goods are: The basic rights and liberties; Freedom of movement, and free choice among a wide range of

He relates positive meaning of liberty to the concept of distributive justice. Therefore Hayek’s objection for this kind of liberty is related to substantive equality. Actually, the issue in Hayek is obvious; equality and liberty is in contrast. If government tries to promote substantive equality under the name of social justice, then liberty is lost at the expense of substantive equality. When I say ‘substantive justice’, I mean concrete measures taken by institutions and governmental organizations which include equality of opportunity, material subvention for lesser inequality and legal attempts to prevent discrimination.

Rawls says he will take the social contract idea to a higher level of abstraction. According to Rawls, justice is what free and equal persons would agree to as basic terms of social cooperation in conditions that are fair for this purpose. This idea he calls "justice as fairness." The conditions that Rawls takes to be most appropriate for the choice of principles of justice constitute what he calls the "original position." If an individual has taken over the task of developing a totally new social contract for today 's society.

In The Categorical Imperative, Kant emphasizes that human autonomy is the essence of morality. He says that one must act not only in accordance to duty, but for the sake of duty However, According to the Utilitarianism, Mill emphasizes that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness Immanuel Kant is the founder of the Kantian branch of ethics and morality, and his theories are personally my favorite theory of ethics so far. According to the utilitarianism, the best action is the one that maximizes utility. However, in Kant’s moral philosophy, people

“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.

Kant emphasizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguity about what it is moral to be crystal clear, and humans are rational beings who should strive for moral maxims motivated by the good will. Furthermore, he argues that human don not need a moral philosopher to show which action is right, we already know what he calls the common human reason. Kant favours to endeavor to do the right actions over the good actions as his attempts to portray the ideal world or the moral utopia. Kantian Deontology theory and the Categorical Imperatives frameworks urge decision-makers to strive for beneficence as a mean to resolve the challenging ethical dilemmas they face, obligating the decision-maker to act ethically and morally motivated by duty. The categorical imperatives are impartial, autonomous, and strict by which tackle respecting others and their dignity, universalize the maxims of our actions, and targeting the Kingdom of

These rights are natural because human nature being there primary source of evolution. • Violation of human rights by the state The concept of AFSPA, can be highly refuted by this school of thought. As according to them, the man made laws can be called as just and fair, only if theyare subjected to objective moral principles, and they does not violate the natural rights of the individuals, on whom they are imposed. The state by enacting AFSPA, to attain national integrity and to fulfill the rhetoric of nationalism, tries to violate those basic human rights of the individuals, which are conferred to them by an eternal authority, which prohibits the state from violate them. The provisions of AFSPA, such as section 4(a), gives the officer in charge, a power to arrest anyone, with minor suspicion of him possessing fire arms, and anyone who is part of an assembly of more than 5 people, and even kill them , if they according to that officer are trying to abscond.