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. (1995, 12) Freedom in Rawlsian theory makes sense at that point where man can develop and pursue their own reasonable conception of the good. In this respect, Rawls’ theory of justice traces a distinction between what is rational for individuals and what is reasonable. Reasonable persons in Rawls’ sense “are not moved by the general good as such but desire for its own sake world in which they, as free and equal, can cooperate with others on terms all can accept” (Rawls 1993: 50). Thus his idea of cooperation is based on reciprocity which necessitates the idea of mutual self-interestedness (Rawls, 1958, 170).
“Realm of Ends” formulation of the categorical imperative, states that we must “act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for merely possible kingdom of ends.” (4:439) It acts as a social contract. Kant further explains it that “a rational being belongs as a member of the kingdom of ends when he gives universal laws in it but is also himself subject to those laws.” (4:434) Being subject to a law does not contradict with the concept of a rational being as an end in itself, because it is not like a slavery since it is not subject to arbitrary will. Just the opposite, since it draws central points from the first and second formulation, “the will of a member could regard itself as at the same time giving universal law through its maxim” (4:434) and no member will see another member as a mere mean. On the other hand, autonomy is not equal to self-mastery. For Kant, it is essentially social.
In addition, Hobbes argues that we are rational. In his idea, we have the capacity to identify our desires as efficiently and maximally as possible, but we do not evaluate our outputs. Our self-interest and rationality, as perspectives of human beings, drives us, according to Hobbes, to sought the willingness of individuals to submit ourselves into a “political authority”. According to him, men´s self-interest and rationality, will give the possibility to accept the authority of a Sovereign in order to be able to live in
Rawl describe the veil of ignorance as a tool that aims to allow people only to know how a general society works, and helps people choose rational principles of justice based on universal morals. Rawls theorized that the veil of ignorance allows people to erase their bias and come to unanimous agreements because no one is in a position to make any principles of justice tailored to the natural lottery of life, in other words the only way one can determine if a choice, or action is moral is if they don’t know how it affect them. Rawls theory of justice introduces two principles which his theory is dependent on. The first principle states: “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others” (Rawls 60). The main concept Rawls conveys is that behind the veil of ignorance the individual does not know there advantage so, that person will try to strive towards
In the Groundwork, the notion of the good does not rely on feeling or sensation; rather than it derives from the rational directly. Kant points out that every motive has an intended effect on the world. When desire drives us, we first examine the possibilities that the world leaves open to us, selecting some effect at which we wish to aim. But, if we act in accord with practical moral law, we encounter a significant difference since the only possible object of the practical law is the Good, since the Good is always an appropriate object for the practical law. Viewing the Good as rational consolidates
As mentioned above the importance of reason to Hume is marginal and accessory in his moral theory. The fundamental role goes on the other hand for passions. In fact because we have these passions we need to satisfy them so we invert to institutions which are artifacts that help us provide a regular and secure supply of impressions for our desires. Example, If someone is attached to a belonging, the passion that correspond to this attachment is called avidity, and the institution securing this belonging is called justice. It is the passion that is then at the origin of an institution and all correlative values.
John Rawls developed his theory of justice as an amalgamation of intuitionism and utilitarianism in order to form an acceptable, reasonable dominant paradigm that answered how a state should distribute its social primary goods fairly. While this theory is important in developing and understanding of political philosophy, its failure to be accepted as a dominant paradigm stems from its failure to adequately answer objections from both the political left and right. Rawlsian Justice is a theory of need-based justice through the approach of justice as fairness. In other words, Rawls says that all individuals should be in a position to achieve their basic needs. From this conception of justice, Rawls attempts to describe the principles of justice upon which the most basic structures of state and society should be based.
chronological list John Rawls, (1921-2002) Conservatism | Liberalism | New Century Rawls 's late works dealt with the issue of stability: whether to stand firm regulated by the two principles of justice? His answer to this question is contained in a collection of lectures Political Liberalism (Political Liberalism). The Rals introduced the idea of pervasive consensus, agreement on the basis of justice as well as good relations between citizens of different religious and philosophical views on the world (ie, different notions of good). In the same section introduced the term public reason - ways of reasoning common to all citizens. Rawls 's A Theory of Justice (Theory of Justice 1971) is the most important normative work of political philosophy
However, in order for the agreement to be secured, we need to eliminate any bias of the rich or the poor, or the religious and the atheist. According to the ‘Veil of Ignorance’, “This ensures that no one is advantaged or, disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances.” In other words let’s assume that
Free will was not created for that sole purpose but Nietzsche's belief is true. Free will allows people to make their own moral decisions based on what they believe. Free will also creates a standard and moral responsibility for people to conform to. Free will causes people to hold themselves and others more responsible for their actions, as they agree that harsh consequences should follow if moral rules are broken. Free will encourages people to take responsibility for their moral actions and the potential consequences encourage more positive moral