John Rawls Theory Of Justice Essay

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.

Both of these views are filled with flaws. To better explain, moral relativism states that moral judgments are true or false, but “only relative to some particular standpoint

Justice is the legal or philosophical theory by which fairness is administered. Concepts of justice may differ based on your society 's practices, beliefs, and feelings. According to Michael Sandel, in his book, Justice: What 's the Right Thing to Do, an important concept of implementing justice is giving all individuals what they deserve. The difficulty of this concept is settling who deserves what and why. Kreon left Polyneices unburied and sent Antigone away to die alone, merely because it is what the two deserved.

Procedural due process and Substantive due process may seem similar but they have vast differences. The overall purpose of due process is to extend justice and fairness to the individual in relationship to government. Procedural due process is an analysis of the procedure required by the constitution when states seek to deprive people of life, liberty or property. Procedural due process is made to protect individual citizens from the coercive power of the Government by ensuring the adjunction process under valid, impartial and fair laws. Procedural due process is a basic claim under the fourteenth amendment that there is an absence of fair process.

I believe Aristotle has the stronger argument in terms of defining justice is. It is important to consider whether a law is just or unjust as opposed to Plato 's argument that we should follow all laws regardless; if we were choose to solely follow all laws and the consequence of that law caused harm to another human being we would unintentionally be harming others, which would make it harder for us to be virtuous. I also believe everyone should be held responsible for their own actions, in addition to using Aristotle 's definition of voluntary action, we choose to follow laws which leads to the world being a more desirable place to live. As we have seen with previous laws, such as slavery, if we fail to question the validity and consequence of the law, but voluntarily follow it blindly it can result in issues for years to come; similar to slavery, despite it being illegal today, prior legality negatively affects minorities in our society. If we fail to question unjust laws and believe everything we are told by the government, we are failing to think for ourselves.

The main objection is an "eye for an eye", or Lex talionis, and I believe it fails to support equality retributivism and creates punishments that are morally unacceptable. There is no way that

Malone attempts a persuasive style of writing but its effectiveness is questionable. He succeeds in creating an argument, but his call-to-action is ineffective. Considering the context, style, and other components, the target audience could not be properly persuaded. Kobutsu Malone’s “Narcissism and Spiritual Materialism: The New Age Legacy” does a dissatisfactory job of persuading its audience, New Age participants, due to his hypocritical ethos, aggressive pathos, and misguided logos. Malone’s main argument, materialistic values are vividly apparent in the New Age, failed to convince readers his opinion should be taken seriously.

So, in order to restore order within one’s individual life, one must defy the social norms that distance themselves from nature to find harmony with it. Furthermore, his use of tone to exemplify his argument is also effective as he condemns people for living rushed, unfulfilled lives for the sake of prosperity and materialistic possessions. When Thoreau says that ”when we are unhurried and wise, we perceive that only great and worthy things have any permanent and absolute existence, that petty fears and petty pleasures are but the shadow of the reality,”(279) he employs a critical tone by stating that people are blinded by these petty things that misconstrue

Here we have the classic dilemma between the spirit and the letter of the law, or, as Vere frames it, the conflict between conscience and law. Because laws exist to support the integrity of a society and because laws receive their strength from those who enforce them, logic calls for the equal and firm application of those laws. Traditionally, people think of justice as being blind, and for good reason: once the adjudicator begins to base his judgments on mitigating, particular, or personal circumstances and considerations, he threatens the very fabric of the law and, by extension, the very fabric of society. However, the firm application of the law means little if that law itself is unjust. Despite the logic of Captain Vere’s arguments, especially

Political liberalism is thought to have two central values -- autonomy and equality, both essential to reinforcing the value of the individual in society. To add on, tolerance is generally thought to go hand in hand with equality. The idea is that in order for every individual to have equal civil liberties and be treated as political equals, others that strongly disagree with their beliefs or lifestyles must at least be tolerant of them. However, the idea of tolerance in itself seems paradoxical. As philosopher Bernard Williams points out in his essay, Toleration: An Impossible Virtue, the biggest puzzle concerning toleration is that “tolerance...is required only for the intolerable” (18).