His’ A Theory of Justice’, most significantly, has been a rich source of ideas which continue to impact contemporary discussions about society and politics. Rawls 's Theory of Justice is extensively considered as one of this century 's most important pieces of political philosophy. The renowned philosopher’s ideology takes as its starting point the argument that "the most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position". By using a similar alternative to the social contract, in his Theory of Justice, Rawls addresses the problem of distributive justice. The theory which he then presents us with, “Justice as Fairness", includes his two
However if the ruler did not comply with the needs of the people, Locke believed that the public had the justified right to rebel. Ultimately, Locke had a great influence in the American Constitution with the message within his philosophies on human rights and government. Baron de Montesquieu's • Montesquieu’s introduced the separation of
Many of his thoughts and principles were studied and adopted by the founders of the United States and are evident in documents, just like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Locke emphasized the freedom of humans, the equality of all before God, regulation and authorities through consent of the governed, and he justified the overthrow of presidency when it fails the people. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was another prominent thinker from the Enlightenment era. Rousseau differed with Locke about the position of the individual in relation to the country, with Rousseau emphasizing the importance of the ruled being worried in
The questions of the whether social inequality is justified and the extent of government to address said inequality are some of the foundations upon which societies and economies are built. Two key philosophers on this issue – John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau – differ on this subject. In Two Treatises on Government, Locke holds that individuals have a right to property derived from their labor, citizens consent to the existence of inequality in society, and governments are instituted among men to protect said property. In contrast, Rousseau writes in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and The Social Contract that inequality should be strictly limited and that governments have a duty to act in the best interest of its citizens by maintaining
Jay emphasized, “ people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies”. Jay definitely believes that the first option is the best which is to unite under one strong government. Jay also answered argument from some politicians that argued that the country should not have a central government and that the states should be divided and separated as sovereign states. Jay answers that the country is united in many different aspects. He wrote, “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has
He is well known for his arguments in favour of a social contract between the state and its citizens to empower the former to be a sovereign force to protect the latter. Like many other great thinkers, his concern was to create a social and political system that could best protect men and women from the dangers of civil conflicts. However, Hobbes marks the beginning of a tradition that started to question the usefulness of Aristotelian approach to knowledge acquisition. With rationality as the touchstone for the progress of knowledge, Hobbes, influenced by Bacon and many others, sought to rebuild its foundations on mathematics and empiricism. His contempt for the methods of the ancients is clearly seen as he notes: The natural philosophy of those schools, was rather a dream than science, and set forth in senseless and insignificant language; which cannot be avoided by those that will teach philosophy, without having first attained great knowledge in geometry: for nature worketh by motion; the ways and degrees whereof cannot be known, without the knowledge of the proportions and properties of lines, and
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.
John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu were political philosophers that debated the question of who was best fit to control the government. Locke and Montesquieu shared similar political beliefs such as natural rights and the separation of government powers. However, both philosophers did, in fact, have their personal views that helped them accomplish important achievements. John Locke published “Two Treatises of Government” and “ An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” which present a detail philosophy of the mind and thought. Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” lays out his philosophical project.
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.
Democracy has long been considered by the modern society as one of the universal values and it has been used as a legitimate decision making method. According to Habermas in Three Normative Models of Democracy (Habermas, 1994), democracy is the institutionalization of the public use of reason jointly exercised by autonomous citizens. Deliberation needs to be freed of power imbalances in order to reach normative consensus based on rationality and equal participation. It is claimed that the goal of deliberate democracy is to achieve a just social order whereas a just social order is the social order which each individual and institution is constrained from committing unjust acts. This essay will argue that, in fact deliberate democracy is not a necessary condition for a just social order.
I Agree… “The Federalist No. 84” and “The Anti-Federalist No.84”, both have their views on what should happen to our government. Whether it is to add a bill of rights or not, but I agree with the writer of “The Federalist No.84” because if the Constitution is adopted, then it will be our Bill of Rights, also based on other countries’ bill of rights then it may argue with a semblance of reason. Because I have read both sides of the discussion, I can see who is wrong and why. The Constitution may be a mess and need amendments, but it covers our basic rights and freedoms.
In Sandel’s “The Public Philosophy of Contemporary Liberalism,” he highlights that the different forms of liberalism put forth a set a values (e.g. the freely-choosing self, toleration, and rights). Minimalist Liberalism argues that different opinions need a neutral framework for social peace. Consequently, one must bracket their controversial attitudes even though this does not seem to solve the problem. Toleration allows for diversity to flourish and equality to thrive, so long as the government be restricted in using coercion to cause citizens to act “morally,” according to their standards.
A government is a governing body of a nation or state. How far does this governing body’s power extend is where the debate begins. It is my belief that a government should protect the rights and freedoms of its people through laws and legislature created for and voted on by its citizens. In general, this view is the common opinion of the people of America. The details of these rights and freedoms and how the government may affect them has led to a rift between our citizens and the formation of political parties.
Vonnegut says in his Political and Social Critique that he based his ideas on the egalitarianism and share the same principles of the America’s Declaration of Independence. If we continue reading, we will reach to the following conclusion: people must be forced to be equal to one another in their appearance, behavior, and achievements. However, “Bergeron”, says that the ideals of egalitarianism can be dangerous if they are interpreted too literally, but
Both philosophers are realists and both identify the need for a ruler. Throughout the examination of the philosophers, both Machiavelli and Hobbes have identified similar theories about political power, however have different views on how the sovereign should behave, methods on becoming and staying in power, as well as his duties when it comes to the people. I personally believe that Hobbes approach and motive behind his theories is more beneficial as the main purpose is to protect society while Machiavelli’s approach motivated by self-interest and creates a corrupt ruler. Machiavelli and Hobbes both support the idea of a sovereign however have very different views on how the sovereign should behave. The