Rawls Theory of Justice Essay

A contemporary philosopher, trick Rawls (1921-2002), is n sensationd for his contri only whenions to governmental and moral philosophical system. In particular, Rawls discussion about referee introduced quintet alpha imaginations into discourse, including the ii normals of arbitrator, the reli adequate to(p) dumb install and hide of ignorance. Rawls to the highest degree famous survive is, A Theory of Justice (1971) gives an universe to this body of thought and he emphasises the wideness in force(p)ice has on governing and organising a companionship.The problem arises by defining what the consideration lowlys theoretic tout ensembley. unity of devil definitions layabout be theatrical roled, the first cosmos definition establish on champions merit or lack at that placeof. This merit theory of arbitrator uses merit to decide how an individual of the club lead be treated based on the contri al integrity and only(a)ion to the high order of magnitude. The both(prenominal) former(a) is the crap aim theory of justice where is it assumed both individual should help those in pick out or who be less(prenominal)(prenominal) privileged.Attempting to eternal rest the demands posed by these rival theories, Rawls maintain that in costities in confederacy mountain only when be warrant if they produce increase gets for the entire federation and only if those antecedently the most dis valued extremitys of troupe be no worse off as a result of any in jibeity. An in disturbity, then, is justified if it contri only whenes to companionable utility, as the merit theory asserts. But, at the same time, Rawls argued, anteriority moldiness(prenominal) be given to the needs of the to the lowest degree advantaged, as the needs theory asserts.Thus, derivative instru ment rewards ar onlyowed to the advantaged ph exclusivelyuss of partnership but non because of any merit on their part. No, these rewards are tolerated because they go away an incentive for the advantaged which ultimately get out prove beneficial to society (e. g. , essencesome the advantaged with the goal of redistributing the wealthiness to render for the to the lowest degree advantaged). Original Stand Using the schoolmaster arrange and experimental thought where agents merchant ship enshroud of ignorance cull tenets to govern society.Rawls argued that two tenets serve to organize society, the closeness tenet and the dispute belief. He rooted the pilot burner spot lively in and extended the concept of social recoil previously espo apply by Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke which made the principles of justice the object of the burn binding members of society together. In summation, Rawls protagonism of treating battalion only as ends and never as means rooted his philosophical speculations in and extended Kants savourless imperative. gibe to Rawls a society is a venture amid free and equate members for the purpose of mutual advantage. Cooperation among members urinates life relegate because cooperation increases the stock of what it is rational for members of society to proclivity irrespective of whatever else its members may want. Rawls calls these confides elementary goods which include among others health, secures, income, and the social bases of self-respect. Rawls noted that there would be disagreement when deciding how the burden would be shared amongst the people.Rawls responded to this challenge by invoking the authentic position, in which representative members of a society would determine the answers to these rugged dubietys. That is, indifferent any politics, the representatives would rationally discuss what screen out of government ordain be back up by a social contract which will achieve justice among all members of society. The purpose for this discourse would not be to rationalise governmental role but to identify the principal(a) principles that would govern society when government is established.The chief t direct of these representatives would not be to protect individual rights but to promote the welfare of society (1971, p. 199). To this end, the representatives do not knoware hide fromwhich place in society they will occupy. In addition, e very(prenominal)(prenominal) factor which baron preconceived feeling a conclusiveness (e. g. , champions tastes, gustatory modalitys, talentss, handicaps, conception of the good) is kept from the representatives. They do, however, arrive knowledge of those factors which will not bias unity(a)s decision (e. g. , social knowledge, scientific knowledge, knowledge identifying what human beings need to live).From this victor position and shrouded by a veil of ignorance about their place in society, Rawls argued the representatives ultimately would select the principle of justice rather than other principles (e. g. , axiological equitys, innate(p) truth, utilitarian principles) to orga nize and govern society. art object individual members of society ofttimes do act in their self- following, this does not mean that they pratnot be rational about their self-interests. Rawls argued that this is incisively what would occur in the original position when the representatives operated from bunghole the veil of ignorance.Freed from focusing upon matchlesss self-interest to the exclusion of others self-interests, the society which the representatives would trope determines what will happen to its members and how important social matters akin cultivation, health care, welfare, and business opportunities will be distributed throughout society. The estimate is that the representatives operating from rear end the veil of ignorance would design a society that is handsome for all of its members because no individual member would be involuntary to risk ending up in an intolerable position that one had created for others but had no intention of being in oneself.Rawls claimed that the representatives to the original position would shake the principle of rational choice, the so-called maximin decision decree. This rule arouses that an agent, when confronted with a choice between alternative states of the world with separately state containing a range of possible set up, would choose the state of af ordinarys where the get through outcome is that state of affairs which is wagerer than the worst outcome presented by any other alternative. Rawls character of two persons sharing a piece of bar demonstrates how the maximin decision rule feeds in essential practice. cogitate there is one piece of cake that two persons want to eat. They partakely desire to eat the cake and each wants the biggest piece possible. To deal with this dilemma, both agree that one will cut the cake duration the other will choose one of the two pieces. The consensus derived guarantees that the cake will be shared fairly, equating justice with fairness. two Prin ciples of Justice The first is the acquaintance principle that states that each member of society has an bear on right to the most extensive abstract of equal elementary liberties compatible with a similar system of equal emancipation for all.Accordingly, each member of society should receive an equal guarantee to as to a greater extent different liberties? and as much of those liberties? as can be guaranteed to every member of society. The liberties Rawls discussed include political liberty (the right to vote and to be eligible for universe office) immunity of speech and assembly liberty of conscience and emancipation of thought freedom of the person a pertinacious with the right to observe open personal property and, freedom from positive arrest and seizure.In contrast to some libertarian interpretations of utilitarianism, Rawls did not advocate absolute or complete liberty which would allow members of society to have or to hang in absolutely anything. The unlikenes s principle requires that all scotch inequalities be position so that they are both a) to the benefit of the least(prenominal) advantaged and b) committed to offices and positions open to all members under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.If this is to occur, Rawls argued, each generation should push the gains of culture and civilization, and maintain intact those just institutions that have been established in addition to putting aside in each period of time a suitable make sense of real capital accumulation. Rawls is willing to tolerate inequalities in society but only if they are arranged so that an inequality real assists the least advantaged members of society and that the inequalities are connected to positions, offices, or commerces that each member has an equal opportunity to attain.In the United States, this purpose is oftentimes called equal opportunity. The inequalities Rawls discussed include inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth as sanitary as inequalities impose by institutions that use deviances in authority and resRawls is willing to tolerate inequalities in society but only if they are arranged so that any inequality actually assists the least advantaged members of society and that the inequalities are connected to positions, offices, or jobs that each member has an equal opportunity to attain.In the United States, this scheme is oftentimes called equal opportunity. The inequalities Rawls discussed include inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth as well as inequalities imposed by institutions that use differences in authority and responsibility or chains of command. The reason the representatives in the original position and operating from behind the veil of ignorance would agree upon the difference principle is not due to the existence of a social contract but to ethics. That is, members of society do not deserve either their native abilities or their place in a social hierarchy.Where a nd when one was innate(p) and the privileges and assets afforded by ones birth is a matter of sheer luck. It would be unfair, Rawls contended, were those born into the least advantaged of society to remain in that place if all members of society could do better by abandoning (or redistributing) initial differences. According to Rawls, this is what ethics? check to the standard of justice? demands and, in the United States, this is the soil of what is oftentimes called affirmative action. The representatives would agree.The liberty principle moldiness(prenominal) always take precedence to the difference principle so that every member of society is assured of equal basic liberties. Similarly, the second part of the difference principle cited above (b) must take priority to the first part (a) so that the conditions of fair equality of opportunity are too guaranteed for everyone (1971, p. 162). Thus, the two principles of justice, the liberty principle and the difference principle, are consistent because society cannot justify a decrease in liberty by increasing any members social and economic advantage.Reflecting Rawls interest in political philosophy, the liberty and principle and the difference principle apply to the basic construction of society (what qualification be called a macro resume)? societys fundamental political and economic arrangements? rather than to particular conduct by governmental officials or individual laws (what might be called a micro view). The liberty principle requires society to provide each citizen with a fully commensurate scheme of basic liberties (e. g. , freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, and due cognitive process of law).The difference principle requires that inequalities in wealth and social position be arranged so as to benefit societys most disadvantaged group. In cases where the two principles conflict, Rawls argues the liberty principle must always take precedence over the difference principle. One exam ple that applies Rawls theory of justice involves how one would become a attorney in the society designed by the representatives in the original position and operating from behind the veil of ignorance. This example also indicates how and why inequalities would exist in that society.In the original position and operating from behind the veil of ignorance, representatives organize society to be governed according to the liberty principle and the difference principle. In that society, any member of society can become a lawyer if one possesses the talent. So, a young fair sex discovers that she possesses the talent and interest to become a lawyer and decides that this is what she wants to do in her life. But, to get the information she actually needs to become a lawyer requires an inequality.That is, less fortunate people must help afford for her education at the public universitys law school with their taxes. In return, however, this young woman will perform some very important fu nctions for other people? including the less fortunate? once she becomes a lawyer. At the same time, however, the lawyer will make a lot of money. But, she is free to keep it because she has earned it. At the same time, she will also pay taxes to the government which, in turn, will be used to provide needed programs for the least advantaged members of society.The issue of equitable pay also provides a unimaginative example that clarifies how Rawls theory of justice can be applied (Maclagan, 1998, pp. 96-97). Noting that the principle equal pay for equal work is eminently fair in concept, Maclagan notes that not all work is equal. What is really needed in society is some rational basis to compare what sometimes are very different occupations and jobs, especially when this involves comparing mens work and womens work. Typically, the criteria used to compare dissimilar jobs quantifies work requirements as well as the investment individuals must make to attain these positions.In addi tion, the amount of skill and training required, the potential for risk of infection and threat to ones life, the disagreeableness regard in the work, as well as the degree of responsibility associated with a job all figure prominently when make such calculations. In actual practice, however, making comparisons between dissimilar jobs is an immensely difficult undertaking, as Maclagan notes, citing as an example the difficulties focusing and labor both confront in the process of collective bargain.Collective negotiate involves ethics because each party declares what the other ought to do. When these differences are resolved through a consensus, a contract provides the basic structure by which the members of that society (called the corporation) will organize and govern themselves for a particular period of time. Coming to agreement upon a contractlike Rawls concept of pondering equilibriumrequires both parties to the collective bargaining process to align their principles an d intuitions through the process of considered dialogue and mutual judgment.Furthermore, the contract? like Rawls difference principle? tolerates inequalities in pay but only as long as the least advantaged enjoy equal opportunity and their situation is protected if not improved. What is noteworthy about Maclagans example is that the parties are not in the original position nor do they operate from behind a veil of ignorance. Instead, they have to cue toward those positions if they are to adjudicate their differences amicably and for the benefit of both. The criticsSince its first publication in 1971, Rawls work has received some begrudging if not venerating criticism. Some have asked which members of society catch up with the least advantaged? For his part, Rawls identified these people broadly as unskilled workers and those whose average income is less than the median income. What Rawls failed to address, however, is the plight of those who may be the truly least advantaged mem bers of society, namely, those citizens of some for good unemployed underclass, who depend entirely upon government largesse to subsist (e. g. welfare), or whose racial or ethnic origins condemn them to permanent disadvantage. The critics ask Should not their plight be considered more important than those who possess more of societys benefits? Furthermore, in so far as Rawls states the difference principle, it appears that inequalities are permissible but only if they better the lot of the least advantaged members of society. However, critics note, that position is uneven with Rawls claim that the representatives to the original position must not take an interest in anyones particular interests.The logic fails if preference must be given by those in the original position to the least advantaged. Lastly, Rawls critique of utilitarianism, his embrace of egalitarianism, and the actual effects of the difference principle combine in such a way that his philosophy can be construed to a dvocate political agenda with Marxist overtones. That is, in actual practice Rawls theory would redistribute societys benefits away from the haves to the have nots with small or no concomitant objective of societys burdens.Economists, for example, note that Rawls has leave out to consider the market forces unleashed in a capitalist society where seeking ones self-interest is arguably the primary motivating principle. These critics argue that even the least advantaged, if they so choose, can take advantage of the minimal benefits society offers them by virtue of citizenship. Through education, persistence, and hard work, the least advantaged (or, their children in the next generation) will be able to participate more fully in enjoying the benefits as well as in bearing the burdens of membership in society.The critics ask Is this not what has happened to waves of immigrants to the United States during the past two hundred years? In light of these criticisms, Rawls modified the pri nciples of liberty and difference. Pondering the question of social stability, Rawls considered how a society ordered by the two principles of liberty and difference might endure. In Political Liberalism (1996), Rawls introduced the belief that stability can be found in an overlapping consensus between citizens who hold diverse religious and philosophical views or conceptions about what constitutes the good to be sought.As with Maclagans (1998) collective bargaining example, this overlapping consensus is found in their agreement that justice is best defined as fairness. In Justice as Fairness (2001), Rawls introduced the thought of public reason, that is, the reason possessed by all citizens which contributes to social stability, a notion he first detailed in The Law of Peoples with The Idea of Public footing Revisited (1999).