John Rawls Vs Nozick

568 Words3 Pages
John Rawls and Robert Nozick are well known as the most eminent political philosophers of the U.S in the late twentieth century. Both of them have had their views of justice and are reviewed and explained as follows: Rawls did a work in 1971 and was about A Theory of Justice. This was his major work that he did, and it greatly assisted to shape a social justice concept, which is social democratic and liberal. He provided a theory that represented an alternative to utilitarianism.His theory focused on the issue of justice as fairness, that is based on two core principles; that every person should have an equal right as similar as others thus reflecting to formal equality of liberal commitment; social and economic inequalities should be arranged in order to favor the less advantaged and their positions and offices open to all in equality of opportunity. He thus fully focuses on material equality and doesn’t emphasize on the social equality.…show more content…
In comparison with the TED talk by Singer, he is able to exhibit the use of advanced technology in combat, as much as it’s safe in that human soldier’s won’t get hurt or die in the battle, since they will be operating in a closed safe room that are miles away from the battle, they go against Aquinas requirements. Peace is never the last resort as countries just start war by sending drones to bomb other countries, without legitimate authority and a just case. Like for example the terrorist group ISIS who kill even the innocent and result to a lot of civilian casualties which has not been proportional. Most of their intentions are wrong and not appropriate, as some are self, economic or political driven and not for the benefit of the common just cause. Thus technology has both advantages and disadvantages, but humans are just seen developing combat advanced technologies with the intentions of hurting and harming our fellow human
Open Document