John Rawls Theory Of Justice Essay

Nozick proposes a definition of justice surrounding liberty. He formulates an entitlement theory comprising of three principles which result in freedom to be absolutely entitled to property and the self. Nozick defends his entitlement theory with a Wilt Chamberlain illustration.His argument maintains that patterned principles of just distribution depart from a historical scheme and, in doing so, involve unacceptable infringements of liberty. Despite being a persuasive and strong argument, the difficult aspect of this is that Nozick does not clearly tell us how to properly satisfy what those three principles require.

Political theorists, whether they are realists, or liberalists, over the centuries, have come into conflict over what they believe to be the utmost important task of the state. Hobbes believes the most important task of the state is to ensure law and order, rooting his argument in the idea of a sovereign ruler. On the other hand, Rawls, a modern theorist, firmly believes that a state should focus on realising justice within their society. While a utopian society cannot be achieved by either of these theories, I will highlight why Rawls was right in his assumption that the main focus of a state should be to ensure justice for all within their nation, through analysing and comparing the conflicting arguments of Hobbes and Rawls.

1.3.4 Justice Theory: Rawls 's theory of justice (2005), revolves around the adaptation of two fundamental principles of justice which in turn, guarantees a just and morally acceptable society.

In Rawls’ paper, “Two Concepts of Rules”, he sheds light on fact that a distinction between justifying a practice and actions that fall under said practice, must be made. This distinction, according to Rawls is crucial in the debate between Utilitarianism and Retributivism, more specifically in defending the Utilitarian view against common criticisms, which will be addressed further in this essay. This essay will be examining the troubling moral question that Rawls addresses; The subject of punishment, in the sense of attaching legal penalties to the violation of legal rules. Rawls acknowledges that most people hold the view that punishing, in broad terms, is an acceptable institution. However, there are difficulties involved with accepting

In our society, people are either born rich and powerful, having the rights and opportunities that those who are born into lower-class would not have. So why should we live in a government system where we allow these inequities to happen? In Justice, Michael J. Sandel discusses John Rawls’ arguments over defining a just society. Rawls believes that “we should reject the contention that the ordering of institution is always defective because the distribution of natural talents and the contingencies of social circumstance are unjust, and this injustice must inevitably carry over to human arrangements. Occasionally this reflection is offered as an excuse for ignoring injustice, as if refusal to acquiesce in injustice is on par with being unable to accept death. The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born in society at some particular position” (Sandel 165). Rawls points out that our society has chosen to ignore the issue of inequity most of the time, so long that the effects of this indifference do not hurt their positions. Moreover, what Rawls has described in this quote is very much evident in our society. The citizens on top–especially upper class white males–have the power to pretend the inequities in American society don’t exist, therefore making our society unjust. More

Peter Singer in his paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” described a principle I know as “Singers Cardinal Principle.” The principle reads “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable more importance, we ought, morally to do it.” Singer is saying that if one person has a opportunity to prevent something wrong form occurring without that persons action ending up causing the same or worst results to happen, then that person is morally obligated to do such action.

The upbringing of a child contains many factors, many of which correlate to where a child grows up. The people, culture, and experiences of someone’s childhood are the greatest determining factor for what kind of person they will become. So how does the nature and nurture of one’s upbringing impact the decisions that they make, and their life in general? Author Wes Moore explores this question in his memoir, The Other Wes Moore, as it relates to two lives in particular. Moore main purpose in this book is to explore the overarching impact that a collection of expectations and decisions, not always one’s own, can have on someone’s life.

John Rawls philosophy is based on his vision of justice. In his book A Theory of Justice he explained his idea of “Original position”, in which every person must know what features about justice and fairness are relevant and which ones are not in order to have a proper critique to a society.

Rawls ' argument that natural talents should only be used if they can benefit others stems from his belief that people with such abilities are undeserving of them (seeing that they did not work to achieve them) and, therefore, they will only be useful if they use these talents for the oppressed. Mark R. Reiff explains this in his work, “Exploitation and Economic Justice in the Liberal Capitalist State”, where he says that Rawls believes

John Rawls is probably the most influential political philosopher of the 20th century. His well-known difference principles, as well as the "Veil of Ignorance" not only show on the textbook of any students study politics but are also frequently cited by politicians in public debates. However, the Rawlsian theory of justice has received many critics as well. One thing that is attacked most, is the fact that the whole theory is mainly based on assumptions of an ideal society. It is seen as problematic by many scholars. Some, for example, think that a theory describing perfect just societies cannot tell us what kind of society is more desirable in real life. Some others critics that the assumption does not relate to reality since it neglects so many inequalities and injustice in the world like gender and race discriminations, thus cannot help to prove the society. People may also question the "Original Position" and "Veil of Ignorance" because it is impossible to happen in reality. Then, does it means all Rawls has suggested are inane and do not worth study?

As discussed previously, Rawls’ theory on individual rights does not include property rights. Nozick in his theory of ‘Justice as entitlement’ involves three main principles. These principles include;

These occasional delineations between principles of justice based on utility lead me to believe that our sentiments of justice are what cause these tensions. Our claim to justice often rooted in our claim to rights, which begs the question of where our rights come from, and whether the rights themselves are inviolable. Mill presents that these rights must be based on utility, stating that without the standard of utility justice would be left to introspection and various interpretations. Rights also arise from our innate desire to punish and have sympathy. These desires are what upset us at injustices not only done to ourselves, but to society as a whole. I agree with this position of punishment because injustices to others can cause up rises due to the sympathies we feel. When you see a victim of something injust, we innately believe that justice should be brought to the perpetrator. This could be seen in multiple areas around the United States with police brutality scenarios, specifically the Ferguson killing of a black teenager. People across the nation began to appeal to their own rights as black individuals and rallied to bring the police force to justice due to the sympathies they felt for Michael Brown. Mill states that it is justice grounded on utility that forbids people to harm each other, therefore it combats the common objections of being able to strip

Income inequality is rampant, and currently, it 's only getting worse. At this moment, the richest 1% of the population control nearly half of all global wealth. If current trends continue, the wealthiest 1% will have more than the other 99% within just a few years. The question is, however, how much income inequality is acceptable? Like many social issues, there is no easy answer, and people are remarkably divided on the answer. The ethical theory of utilitarianism provides little guidance on the topic, with arguments being readily made on both sides under this principle. Political philosopher, John Rawls, argues that income inequality is acceptable, but only under very stringent circumstances. In opposition to Rawls, Robert Nozick,

Rawls ' Social Justice is an ethical theory that define justice as “what people would choose when they are rational, self-interested and behind the veil of ignorance” (Johnson p. 48). Rawls’ theory of justice has two main ideas: first, everybody has the “equal right” to liberty, and 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”( p. 48). The main purpose of this rules is to give “liberty and opportunity” (p. 48) to everybody in our society.

When discussing necessities to life, one must discuss Healthcare and health care reform. Our society is in desperate need of health care reform because of the millions of people without health insurance. History shows us the government programs generally do not work. Soto, C. (2012). In my opinion programs like social security, Medicaid and Medicare are losing money at a fast rate but yet we still pay into it. Free clinics and free programs generally are not as easy to access due to long waits and inconvenient hours. I want to used Rawl’s Veil of ignorance is a device used to determine how we should allocate scares resources such as health care and medical resources. Moreno-Terenero & Roemer John discuss Rawls theory of justice also called