John Rawls’ Fairness Approach is an appropriate ethical framework to use when assessing this dilemma. This approach questions if everyone involved is being treated fairly (is there favoritism and discrimination?). The Fairness Approach examines how fairly or unfairly the actions of an individual or group distribute benefits and burdens everyone else. With this approach, consistency of treatment among persons is key. The only insistence when treatment must differ is if there is a morally relevant difference between people (Andre, Meyer, Shanks, Velasquez, 1989). There are three different kinds of justice -- Distributive, Restorative, and Compensatory. Distributive justice focuses on the benefits and burdens evenly distributed amongst society’s…
I have always thought myself to be mindful of my country’s socio-political climate and the connotations of each social class, it is something that I am passionate about, but Mr. Bardecki’s mention of John Rawls was my first introduction to the theory of justice as fairness. From the article “John Rawls and the Liberal Theory of Society” this was one of Rawls’ bold, powerful statements that struck me the most: “A just society is a society that if you knew everything about it, you’d be willing to enter it in a random place.” I believe that this concisely states John Rawls’ philosophy of equal rights, opportunity, and promotion of the least advantaged members of society. In the aforementioned quote, Rawls suggests that for a society to be truly fair, there would be no discrimination between the classes. To simplify, you would not care whether you were to be put into the upper class or the lower class of a society because you would have the same opportunities and benefits in both.…
The United States Pledge of Allegiance is an honorable and commendable mantra. It concludes with, “one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” Justice in the former reference is inclusive for everyone, an entitlement, granted upon birth. John Rawls position of justice is that “everyone should be treated equally and as fair as possible”. Mr. Rawls position parallels the Egalitarian theory of equality and mutual respect. This isn’t necessarily the practice because contrary to the hope for multiple factors are factored in to the outcome.…
“I had one last chance to make a decision. One final opportunity to decide who I was going to be. I could step into that alley, stand up for Hassan, the way he’d stood up for me all those times in the past, and accept whatever would happen to me. Or I could run. In the end I ran.” (Pg. 77)…
I also think that Rawls’s theory of justice is a good one. But I doubt if this can be applied in reality. As everyone in our society has his/her own role or position. For example, I am a student, and you are a professor. As a student, I always want to do less work and have good grades; while as a professor, you would like students to study hard. So when come to the decision of what is justice, we will have different opinions. Same as when governor or some authorities define the concept of justice, they will have their own version of justice. As long as we people live in a society, we will have different status, and this will definitely affect our idea of justice and the regulation to govern the society. I also doubt if we really have the original position or how to realize this position. As long as people are conscious, they are always remember or know who they are and what they do and their position in the society, unless they lose their memories. Even the most fair person we believe cannot totally ignore his/her position when…
Cohen argues that as a requirement of justice, people must be compensated for their misfortunes that are not derived from choice. Rawls is seen as inconsistent in his theory, as he seems to appeal to the distinction between choice and circumstance, yet his Difference Principle undermines it. However, Rawls never intended for his statements about morally arbitrary factors to have this kind significance. His intention was to provide a clear workable set of principles that could actually be applied in a democratic society. This focus on choice and circumstance distinction is impossible and distracts from what Rawls was attempting to achieve. Rawls realized that natural variances are inevitable but the Difference Principle allows for differences in natural endowments to work to the benefit of all in society. He did not attempt to eliminate the influence that morally arbitrary factors have on distributive shares because by providing people with the social bases of self-respect, the Difference Principle makes it possible to pursue diverse conceptions of the good. Rawls’ theory should be understood as an attempt to devise the most reasonable solutions that could be applied in a…
In recent discussions of love and hate, a controversial issue has been presented: can true love conquer all adversity? On one hand, some argue that love has its limitation. From this perspective, many will claim that familial love cannot conquer a violent home with a violent father. On the other hand, however, others argue that love can conquer any obstacle that appears in a relationship, whether material or natural. In the words of one of this view’s main proponents, “Come live with me and be my love, and we will all the pleasures prove that valleys, groves, hills, and fields, woods, or steepy mountain yields (Marlowe 777).” According to this view, love is enough to move mountains. In sum, this issue is whether love can conquer all adversity or if love has its limitations that cannot be overcome.…
The first interpretation of Rawls’ second principle is the efficiency principle, from which follows the system of liberal equality. The efficiency principle states that a configuration is efficient when it is impossible to alter the configuration so as to make some persons better off without making others worse off. For any given scenario, there are many possible configurations that are efficient, but according to this principle none are better than others. Evidently, the efficiency principle cannot on its own be a measure for justice. The system of liberal equality attempts to add a component of justice to the efficiency principle by implementing…
Rawls aspires to investigate and present a conception of justice. He believes that, in order to create a just society, we must begin in a hypothetical place with no predetermined conceptions of social or economic status. No person would know his place in society, or what social or economic class he fits into. No one would be aware of his own intelligence or abilities. Further still, no person would know what assets or disadvantages were distributed to him by chance, generation, or inheritance. This hypothetical position of unknowing would create an “original position of equality” (Rawls, p. 498). From this original position, everyone is equal in all conceivable societal and economic terms.…
The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), or Dewey Decimal System, is a proprietary library classification system created by Melvil Dewey in 1876.[1] It has been revised and expanded through 23 major editions, the latest issued in 2011.[2] Dewey was responsible for all revisions until his death in 1931. A designation number, such as Dewey 16 for the 16th edition, is given for each revision.…
John Rawls, using Kantian rationality, discusses ways to determine principles of social justice. He begins by making a clear distinction as to what defines the social justice used in his argument – “the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation”. Rawls then continues to introduce concepts such as the original position which pertains to the thought experiment he calls the veil of ignorance – the original position is a hypothetical state where members of society decide what the principles of justice are. To find the original position, the members must use the veil of ignorance in the sense of having ignorance toward class, intelligence, strength, and things alike, in order to prevent bias and in turn create a fair choice. With this in mind, Rawls sets forth to disprove utilitarianism within justice. He claims that utilitarianism is unjust for it does not respect the rights and liberties of all individuals - if slavery was beneficial to the majority, using utilitarianism logic, some would claim it is just. Rawls argues for the equality of rights; inequalities are justified only if they benefit the society as a whole. He makes a key distinction between the benefit of the majority, and the advantage of all.…
John Rawls and Robert Nozick both agree on the point of view of human beings are considered equal and free (Schaefer, 2006). John Rawls claimed that the citizens had a veil of ignorance, which meant that the citizens makes a choice without the knowledge of their social position or natural abilities ( Langan, 1977). John Rawls implemented and supported two principles of justice which he thought will be universally accepted. First was the principle of liberty which he explained that each person has the right to the greatest equal liberty possible. The second principle was the principle of difference which stated that social and economic differences in society could only be justified if they benefited the worst off (Costa, 2009).…
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls begins with the statement that, ‘‘Justice is the first virtue of social institution,’’ meaning that a good society is one structured according to principals of justice (1998). John Rawls states that when a person is covered in the veil of ignorance, a society without his/her own status known must begin in that society. They must provide a place that they could relate to for someday they may have bad luck and end up as a person on the lowest end of the ladder in society. This is one way to have a just and fair society for all to live. A place where status does not matter and no one would ever feel bad for the situation they are in.…
Because Rawls created two justice principles based on the assumption that everyone is behind the “veil of ignorance”. If there is no real “veil of ignorance”, Rawls’ two justice principles couldn’t be true in reality. So, what is the real justice in the reality? Question 2:…
A contemporary philosopher, John Rawls (1921-2002), is noted for his contributions to political and moral philosophy. In particular, Rawls ' discussion about justice introduced five important concepts into discourse, including: the two principles of justice, the “original position” and “veil of ignorance”. Rawls most famous work is, A Theory of Justice (1971) gives an introduction to this body of thought and he emphasises the importance justice has on governing and organising a society.…