John Rawls Concept Of Justice Essay

1118 Words5 Pages
Justice explained
What is justice? According to Wikipedia.com, justice is defined as a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness. The views of justice differ from person to person. John Rawls was an American philosopher, and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy. His view on justice was similar to Karl Marx’s belief. Marx’s believed that fairness or equality is the true test of justice. Rawls, rejects the utilitarian concept of justice. The utilitarian concept suggests that an individual may have to suffer or be deprived of certain rights for the greater good of the society. For example, a utilitarian would believe that although slavery causes suffering of certain human beings, since slaves are there for the greater good of people, it is justifiable to have slavery. Rawls argues this, as even I would. He says that every individual has a natural right, which even the welfare of everyone else cannot override.
…show more content…
Nozick was another prominent philosopher who was most prominent in the 1970s and 1980s. Robert questioned the role of the state in promoting justice. Nozick believes the state may legitimately use its power to protect citizens against force, theft, and fraud, but he insists, “the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizen to aid others, or to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection.” Here you can see the similarities between Rawl and Nozick. The similarity here is that one citizen should not aid another citizen or for the benefit of the society, if harmed. The difference, however, is that for Nozick fairness does not lie in wealth redistribution as Rawls seems to suggest, but rather in safeguarding what people have legitimately acquired and are entitled to keep. Nozick values liberty over equality, so he is concerned about protecting the rights of
Open Document