John Rawls Theory Of Justice And Political Liberalism

Living in 21st century America, everyone is used to having equal rights, no matter their color or gender. But it was not always that way. About 150 years ago, women and men were not equal. Women were not allowed to vote or even publicly speak. If you were extremely poor or from a foreign country, you would very likely be sold into slavery.

“Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice. suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals” (Martin Luther King, Jr.). Based on the Constitution, equality has the possibility of being achieved because amendments can be placed in order to get closer to it. Also the Constitution has shown no discrimination to a certain group of people, and instead has tried to push the idea of equality to the next level. Although people, in the past, have been through many harsh events, the Constitution has always made a way to repair its mistakes.

Rawls’ idea of justice as fairness, which he presented in his book, “A Theory of Justice,” emphasizes the importance of equal opportunities and equal distribution of wealth and resources in society. This idea resonates with me because, as someone who values fairness and equality, I believe that everyone should have the same chance to succeed and live a fulfilling life. Rawls’ work has taught me to be more aware of societal inequalities and to work towards creating a fairer and more just

Rawls states in the article “the main idea is that society is rightly ordered, and therefor just, when its major institutions are arranged so as to achieve the greatest net balance of satisfaction summed over all the individuals belonging to

With these amendments, everyone is literally equal. No one is more beautiful or smarter than everyone else and also no one is faster or stronger than anyone else. The way they handicap these citizens is where the injustice is rooted. In Kurt Vonnegut’s

In Sandel’s “The Public Philosophy of Contemporary Liberalism,” he highlights that the different forms of liberalism put forth a set a values (e.g. the freely-choosing self, toleration, and rights). Minimalist Liberalism argues that different opinions need a neutral framework for social peace. Consequently, one must bracket their controversial attitudes even though this does not seem to solve the problem. Toleration allows for diversity to flourish and equality to thrive, so long as the government be restricted in using coercion to cause citizens to act “morally,” according to their standards. One may argue that the reason to protect rights in today’s society is to ensure that the government remain neutral to protect individuals from coercion

Two opposing viewpoints can be found in this debate on who’s responsibility it is to eradicate poverty, those who believe it is up to each individual state’s responsibility to eradicate poverty and the cosmopolitan approach that advocates for placing responsibility on the shoulders of the rich and powerful. I will argue for the cosmopolitan approach as it is evident the secular statist approach has thus failed to amass any significant progress. The cosmopolitan position calls for the principles of distributive justice to be applied on the global scale because people as individuals, rather than states are morally primary. The ideals of the Cosmopolitan position can be traced back most recently to John Rawls “A theory of Justice” where his work resuscitated the social contract tradition and argued about the injustices of resource inequality. He introduce the basic principles of justice, which he argues ought to be the principles of justice governing the basic structure of a society.

In our society, people are either born rich and powerful, having the rights and opportunities that those who are born into lower-class would not have. So why should we live in a government system where we allow these inequities to happen? In Justice, Michael J. Sandel discusses John Rawls’ arguments over defining a just society. Rawls believes that “we should reject the contention that the ordering of institution is always defective because the distribution of natural talents and the contingencies of social circumstance are unjust, and this injustice must inevitably carry over to human arrangements. Occasionally this reflection is offered as an excuse for ignoring injustice, as if refusal to acquiesce in injustice is on par with being unable to accept death.

Michael Oakeshott, an English Philosopher, was a conservative thinker who wrote on the topic of rationalism and its effects on political life. In his essay “Rationalism in Politics” Oakeshott is fast to characterize rationalists, stating that they are “...thought free from obligation to any authority...” and that they have “...no opinion, no habit, no belief, nothing so widely held that he hesitates to question it and to judge it by what he calls his ‘reason’.” (Oakeshott pg.6) Moreover, Oakeshott continues throughout his article to characterize rationalists by explaining two types of knowledge. The first type of knowledge he coins is technical while the second type of knowledge is practical.

We can learn something from Rawls theory of distribution. Rawls' position is comparable to a market economy in which wealth is distributed through the tax and welfare system. A distribution of wealth is what most people would regard as fair and just. Rawls believes we cannot do anything that isn’t in the interest of the lowest earners. His belief is that we all have an equal right to life’s liberties.

Political theorists, whether they are realists, or liberalists, over the centuries, have come into conflict over what they believe to be the utmost important task of the state. Hobbes believes the most important task of the state is to ensure law and order, rooting his argument in the idea of a sovereign ruler. On the other hand, Rawls, a modern theorist, firmly believes that a state should focus on realising justice within their society. While a utopian society cannot be achieved by either of these theories, I will highlight why Rawls was right in his assumption that the main focus of a state should be to ensure justice for all within their nation, through analysing and comparing the conflicting arguments of Hobbes and Rawls.

In Rawls’ paper, “Two Concepts of Rules”, he sheds light on fact that a distinction between justifying a practice and actions that fall under said practice, must be made. This distinction, according to Rawls is crucial in the debate between Utilitarianism and Retributivism, more specifically in defending the Utilitarian view against common criticisms, which will be addressed further in this essay. This essay will be examining the troubling moral question that Rawls addresses; The subject of punishment, in the sense of attaching legal penalties to the violation of legal rules. Rawls acknowledges that most people hold the view that punishing, in broad terms, is an acceptable institution. However, there are difficulties involved with accepting

John Rawls believed that if certain individuals had natural talents, they did not always deserve the benefits that came with having these abilities. Instead, Rawls proposed, these inherent advantages should be used to benefit others. Although Rawls makes an excellent argument on why this should be the case, not all philosophers agreed with his reasoning, especially Robert Nozick. Nozick believed in distributing benefits in a fair manner in accordance with the Entitlement Theory, which has three subsections: Just Acquisition, Just Transfer and Just Rectification.

Rawls would object that having a society with a command economy would take away individuals’ liberty to be “self-governing agents” due to the reduction of basic rights and liberties, thus contradicting his theory of justice (Freeman, p. 51). In a command economy, the government is the sole entity that controls all aspects of the economy, including the allocation of resources. This eliminates the need for markets, thus constricting how goods are transferred between citizens, posing a number of problems for Rawls. Rawls would argue that this goes directly against the first principle of justice, specifically violating the freedoms in the liberty and integrity of the person (Freeman, p. 48).

Political philosophy has analyzed the various theories of justice for centuries giving as a result very different positions, which have always corresponded with the historical context where they were made. According to John Rawls, justice can be defined as fairness. He is positioned in favor of a reconciliation of the principles of freedom and equality through the idea of justice as fairness. Therefore, Rawls argues that if we were in the original position (a hypothetical situation when the government does not exist), we would arrive to these two basic principles: one that would offer the same fundamental freedoms for all individuals, and another referring to social and economic equality, which despite not require an equal distribution of income and wealth, it only allows economic inequalities whose purpose is precisely to improve the situation of poor people in our society. On the other hand, Nozick’s work is the libertarian answer to Rawls’s approaches.