The extent of fairness in this method is however, rather questionable and the same can be said for Rawls’s overall understanding of fairness, especially when looking at practicalities, because Rawls’s theory is highly idealistic and his methodology allegedly universal. In this essay I will therefore take a political realist approach and critically assess the question whether Rawls’s connection between justice and fairness is applicable in practice and whether making this connection can be justified. I will argue that justice is a practical concept for which it is important that current societal factors are considered and in doing so I will first look at the practical aspects in applying Rawls’s theory and conclude that his association of justice cannot be justified when looking at the concept of fairness applied in a practical
In addition, he believes that “we just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as a mere means, and, if possible, that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neil, 2008, p. 113). This principle acts as a moral code implying that one should never treat a person merely as a means to an end. Overall, Kantian ethics focuses and recognizes the importance of the value of humanity. His categorical imperative ultimately leads to a “kingdom of ends,” in which norms that deny the value of humanity are not permitted. In my opinion, it would be difficult to disagree because most individuals value their own life.
One of the points discussed with the common good was the idea of individualism. Though the common good strives for communal equality, social justice is on a more individualistic level, striving for justice within individuals. It was previously mentioned that it is important to find a balance between individualism and the common good. Having reached the common good brings society one step closer to accomplishing social justice. Nevertheless, optimal health and well-being, the common good, and social justice all closely relate to one another.
Leadership is limited by the perspectives that we have which are usually informal theories that we know to be normal. Critical social theory is a tool to get a perspective for leadership theory and is a direct rejection of positivism. Research is said to be biased because those who engage in it, weather or not they are aware of it, act from a set of assumptions that influences their decisions. Critical social theories also assume structural inequality and challenge the taken for granted assumptions while holding people responsible for their own liberation and progressing toward social justice. There are three central themes of critical social theory that were chosen to enhance the understanding of leadership.
Maybe suppressing everyone’s feelings will do the trick, thus no one will try to be different. Same idea was applied in the novel written by the Lois Lowry “The Giver”. In this novel, all the feelings were cut off, thus creating world of indifference and unnatural equality, because all of the decisions were made for them. This worldview seems at first working, but fails for many reasons. I think a world (or society) that tries to change humans’ nature is dystopian by its
Equal rights for all is a social agenda which clearly does not mean that law supports inequality rather it says that every human is created equal and the practices of discrimination that we are facing is because of the unfair treatment of one individual by another. Law itself is against the inequality in every field of life, in fact all humans are equal before law. But how certain practices of discrimination among the societies and people are violating the law equality is the major concern of this report. First equality and its concepts are explained and second the law of equality. Furthermore, social issue and a group of people as reference to equality concept are also explained in this
Müge Neda Altınoklu Şenay 24 Mart 2016 Dilemma of Justice Equity rather than equality? The ancient concept of justice is fundamentally different from its modern meaning. In modern times, although the institutional meaning of justice means to judge crimes or to resolve conflicts between individuals according to the laws, and although in a less institutional sense, we speak of justice in a sense of social justice that assume the fair distribution of economic wealth, power, rights and duties in society, justice in antiquity was highly different from its modern meaning and first thought as a virtue that provide harmony within the ideal state. Ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle dealt with the question of justice and linked it to the important concepts such as equality, equity, fairness, proportionality, etc. Since the ancient Greeks had no legal system in its modern sense, the justice is exercised not in its normative sense, but in moral sense.
Fairness provokes contrasting opinions in various people, but one common theme is that everyone wants what benefits them. When are two people equal, or what makes something equal or unequal? Do laws make something just or unjust? When defining the word ‘fair,’ one must also define words such as ‘unfair,’ ‘justice,’ and ‘equality’
Practically, it has also not been proven whether there is positive correlation between in-group and out-group assessments. Managing numerous identities such as religion, race and politics in the multi-cultural society to come up with a harmonious social identity is still a challenge to Social Identity Theory. Finally he proposes that Social Identity Theory should try to explain tool, both theoretical and methodological, that may assist in understanding the operation of social identity processes in an automatic level, how it happens and the likely effect for attitudes and behavior in a controlled
Pound says that for social control, interest is the only thing which should be taken into account and Law is a means of social control. Thus law should work for balancing of interest within the society i.e. satisfying maximum interest with least waste. Somehow this theory gives prime importance to interest of public at large over individual interest and not if interpreted strictly then they may result in eliminating individual interest. Here law is not supposed to deal with individual interest but a bunch of interest.