Society is inherently unequal, said John Rawls. To obtain equality is an ideal dream, however to reduce inequality isn’t. An idea to reduce inequality and provide equal opportunity to everyone in the society is what will be stated in this paper. This paper provides a theoretical approach towards the problem of equality in a society like that of India wherein reservations play a vital role in catering to the disadvantaged sections of the society. The paper dwells into the evolution of the concept of reservations and the problems posed by it. It also provides a theoretical solution that will be helpful in reducing inequality.
John Rawls and Affirmative Action
John Rawls propounded what is called the “Ideal Theory”. The theory explains what constitutes an ideal and just society. But what it lacks is a solution to an unjust or a non-ideal society. The Ideal Theory lays down the following principles:
i) Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all. ii) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions. First, they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality; and second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
The first part of the second principle is concerned with the institutional requirement of making sure that public opportunities are open to all, without anyone being
In the short story Harrison Bergeron, equality forces in American society. The characters Harrison and George are both handicapped by the Government to be equal with society. Harrison is taken away from his mother Hazel and father, George because he is against being handicapped to be equal. George believes it has made the world a better place than it was before. Although, George is above average I look up to him because I'm similar to him along with his intelligence, beliefs in equality, and support for the laws.
[3]In a thought experiment proposed by philosopher John Rawls, individuals are asked to imagine designing a just society under a veil of ignorance, a concept urging people to prioritize fairness and equality since they can't predict whether their social structures will advantage or disadvantage them. Similarly, [4]Dr. King stresses a fair and harmonious society in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," except that he focuses on solving existing problems rather than creating a whole new society. The most fundamental difference between Dr. King and John Rawls is that Dr. King confronts a real problem that exists in a real society. In contrast, John Rawls only proposes a theoretical solution.
Rawls’ idea of justice as fairness, which he presented in his book, “A Theory of Justice,” emphasizes the importance of equal opportunities and equal distribution of wealth and resources in society. This idea resonates with me because, as someone who values fairness and equality, I believe that everyone should have the same chance to succeed and live a fulfilling life. Rawls’ work has taught me to be more aware of societal inequalities and to work towards creating a fairer and more just
during the civil rights movement there was a lot of chaos going on. People back then were treated differently due to segregation. The african american people tried fighting for their rights to have the same equality as the white people had. any african american tried making history by either going to an all white school or getting their rights to vote.
The New Deal, World War II, and post-World War II marked significant periods in American history as the federal government created various programs to relieve the nation from the Great Depression and spur economic growth. However, as Ira Katznelson points out in his book, “When Affirmative Action Was White,” these programs held disparities that disproportionately benefited white Americans. This essay will examine how New Deal, World War II, and post-World War II programs represented affirmative action for white Americans. In “When Affirmative Action Was White,” Katznelson explores how New Deal programs represented affirmative action for white Americans.
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
Inequality, or a one-sided situation in which some have more rights or better opportunities than others (Webster, 2015) is not a foreign subject to most of us. In light of recent racial tensions throughout America, there appears to be a large amount of controversy surrounding this term and how it applies to us in today’s day and age. This simple ten-letter word has made multiple appearances in the last ten months and continues to do so with each passing day. Inequality could sometimes be mistaken for the word “inequity”, or “the fact or quality of being unfair; unfairness, partiality” (OED, 2015.) While the two have their similarities, the situations in which they are used vary immensely.
Affirmative action is defined as; the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture. History in America has always had the reoccurring theme of racism. Throughout history there has traditionally been a universal feel of oppression to minorities. Blacks and Latinos specifically have been stereotyped as underprivileged and not able to have equal opportunity in America. Statistics back these claims up as well; America boasts 64% of the American workforce is considered Non-Hispanic White, 16% Hispanic, and a mere 12% for African Americans.
We would assume that in our diversified society, these rights and freedoms are being extended to everyone without question. However, we face the matter of classifying ourselves based on a group we associate with, whether that be race, ethnicity, or gender. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, these classifications served as a powerful driving force to the inequality many faced. The inequality existed in two forms, inequality of opportunity and inequality of outcome. The first, inequality of opportunity, makes its way into practicality when laws or government decisions are the main driving force for widening social inequality.
Rawls states that equality of opportunity represents, “… the background institutions of social and economic justice,” that help those who are most disadvantaged (Rawls 288). Through his own story, Moore displays how education allows those who come from essentially nothing can achieve success. It gives, “… a reason to believe that a story of struggle apathy, and pain… can still have a happy ending,” (Moore 183). Rawls also believes in the, “… equal opportunities of education for all regardless of family income” (Rawls 286). Both see education not only as providing knowledge for all people, but also resources and role models, as the most direct and effective method for creating greater social equality within a
Racism has always been a popular topic throughout the course of American history. It may be arguable that African Americans have gained the equality they have fought for, and in more extreme cases, died for. Richard Wright was born after the Civil War, but before the Civil Rights Movement. If he were writing an autobiography today, in 2016, about a black boy growing up in the United States, he would write about the mass incarceration of black men, the discrepancy faced by African Americans with a college degree compared to the whites without, and the difference in wage distribution between white Americans and African Americans.
If a tree falls in an abandoned forest, does it make a sound? The answer has less to do with the trees that are falling, and more to do with the ones that don’t. When people choose not to listen to the deteriorating trees of the innocent, their voices merely become a blip in the background noise of society. Although the discrimination gap has decreased in the past two centuries, inequality in America has become an unchecked epidemic.
John Rawls believed that if certain individuals had natural talents, they did not always deserve the benefits that came with having these abilities. Instead, Rawls proposed, these inherent advantages should be used to benefit others. Although Rawls makes an excellent argument on why this should be the case, not all philosophers agreed with his reasoning, especially Robert Nozick. Nozick believed in distributing benefits in a fair manner in accordance with the Entitlement Theory, which has three subsections: Just Acquisition, Just Transfer and Just Rectification.
Distributive justice by definition deals with the distribution of benefits and burdens across members of a society. Over time, philosophers have argued how these benefits and burdens should be distributed as what results from them fundamentally affects people’s lives. John Rawls, an American moral and political philosopher argued as a liberal “Justice as Equality” by means of his three principles of justice: the principle of equal liberty, equal opportunity and difference. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from harm by others, but also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty (Minogue, Girvetz, Dagger & Ball, 2018). Rawls believed that everyone in society should have had equal political rights, although social and economic inequalities existed, but only under the condition that they were to the maximum advantage of the least advantaged people in society.
In recent years the way wealth is distributed in the United States has caused a huge drift between the upper class and the lower class. The country is becoming a banana republic in which most of the wealth is owned by the top 1%. Although the United States is a democracy I believe that in recent years, it has become a plutocracy nation. The wealth inequality plays a major role in this. If this trend between the upper class and the lower class continues it could cause many problems.