Rawls theory of Justice relies on two principles, the first Principle of Equal liberties, and the second Difference principle. In today’s society Rawls’s theory of the Veil of Ignorance would better promote
Equality means that all people have the same equal rights. I think equality is a good feature because it stops people from have too little or too much power. Equality is also big because the people that have little power now have the same power as the people with lots of power. This is why Equality is a major undemocratic feature of Colonial
For example, proponents of a highly unequal and competitive market economy may argue that the abundance of wealth produced by their preferred system contributes to the absolute standard of living of the poorest people in society. Critical Survey of Literature (2005) On the other hand, advocates of a highly redistributionist economy can maintain that radical redistribution of wealth will provide the greatest support for the poorest. Because no one can know—behind a veil of ignorance—which system would lead to the best possible lives for the poor, there can be no way of deciding what kind of society should be preferred. Rawls (1971).
He relates positive meaning of liberty to the concept of distributive justice. Therefore Hayek’s objection for this kind of liberty is related to substantive equality. Actually, the issue in Hayek is obvious; equality and liberty is in contrast. If government tries to promote substantive equality under the name of social justice, then liberty is lost at the expense of substantive equality. When I say ‘substantive justice’, I mean concrete measures taken by institutions and governmental organizations which include equality of opportunity, material subvention for lesser inequality and legal attempts to prevent discrimination.
On the other hand, while philosopher Robert Nozick paid a generous tribute to the brilliance of Rawls’ philosophical construction, he provides a rejection to Rawls’ claims from a libertarian perspective. Libertarians have the desire to divide and limit power. That is, government will be limited generally through a written constitution limiting the powers that the people delegate to government (Boaz, 2015). Nozick stated that Rawls’ idea would have resulted in the restriction of free choice or forced distribution within the society.
JUSTICE IN NICOMACHEAN ETHICS: Aristotle observed in book V of the nicomachean ethics that the word justice is has a double meaning as: “Justice can mean either lawfulness or fairness, since injustice is lawlessness and unfairness. The laws encourage people to behave virtuously, so the just person, who by definition is lawful, will necessarily be virtuous. Virtue differs from justice because it deals with one’s moral state, while justice deals with one’s relations with others. Universal justice is that state of a person who is generally lawful and fair. Particular justice deals with the “divisible” goods of honor, money, and safety, where one person’s gain of such goods results in a corresponding loss by someone else.”
been those belonging to the tradition of the Law of Nature. These show human rights depend directly on the natural order and are subject to a universal moral low, superior to positive law Present day human rights notions show human rights do not rest on nature but represent human requests historically defined and morally and politically justifiable by means of a non-naturalistic theory. History shows human rights were a vindication of freedom against the established power and as social economical demands. A clear understanding of the relationship between human rights and morality is best uncovered through the two main types of human rights moral theories the naturalistic and non-naturalistic one. 1.1.2.
Finally, I will advance an argument as to how Mill’s principle of utility might be better supported by government intervention; or rather, how government interference is necessary for freedom of thought and expression to increase utility (in the way Mill claims). To begin with, Mill’s principle of utility is that we ought to judge actions and decisions based the utility which we gain from their consequences. In other words, if an action’s consequences increase utility, then it is ethically the ‘right’ action to take; similarly, if an action’s consequences decrease utility, then that action can be judged as ‘bad.’
However, Nozick appeals to a “Lockean provision” such that an individual can legitimately claim possession of the natural world. Kymlicka summarizes the sentiment succinctly, that is, people own themselves; the world is initially unowned; you can acquire absolute rights over a disproportionate share of the world, if you do not worsen the condition of others ; it is relatively easy to acquire absolute rights over a disproportionate share of
In this essay, it is argued that to achieve a truly fair conception of justice that could be applied to social and economic structure of society is only possible from the initial position of equality that ensures a complete dissociation from any knowledge about personal position in the society. Such a conception of justice leads to a just society that equally distributes the benefits of every member of such a community (Rawls, 1999: 3-19). This essay first elaborates on Rawls’s understanding of justice. The next part addresses why and how the veil of ignorance is crucial for the original position of equality and the importance of difference-principle emerging from this position.
The definition of Utilitarianism is “the ethical principle that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.” A Utilitarian would say that taking Henrietta Lacks’ cells without her permission or knowledge would be acceptable because it has helped with so many things. Libertarianism is defined as “an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.”