Persuasive argument - Essay Example

Persuasive Argument In the writings of Rawls, he holds that in the free society people within that particular society have different views with regard to religion, different conception of what is wrong or right as well as other forms in which people relate personally. In view of this, and in the democratic society, people mentioned above would have contradicting commitments while there exists only one law to guide the diverse nature of the society. Rawls therefore tends to believe that enforcing a universal law within this diverse nature of the society is unworkable and hence raises two main fundamental issues: legitimacy and stability. In his view therefore democracy is based on justice in a liberal society since it promotes and provides for basic human rights that determine justice. In the view of Rawls, the use of unified law is not legitimate in a democratic society and hence it is not practical for a liberal society to work or function correctly while they are unified by one law and when they claim democracy. He also argues that in a democratic system, the political power is always based on the people and hence the legitimate use of the coercive political power is misplaced. The people here are viewed as a collective body. In this perspective we can not that Rawls is putting more emphasis on the will of the people and not on the political representatives in delivering justice. In fact, this argument can be interpreted to mean that the political power is not based on the individuals but on the people as a collective body. Rawls argument is that we cannot deliver justice to the people with just imposing on law to the people. This is because it is not legitimate for the democratic system to put all its citizens to follow just one law since the citizens themselves will always inevitably hold different views. In this perspective it would not function well and hence justice would only be delivered to certain few individuals who hold the same views or close views to the ones imposed by the law. The rest with diverse views would always conflict with the law enforcement agencies and it is not desirable. The issue of stability on the other hand puts the issue of democracy and political power from the receiving end. In this way, an individual would not obey the law if it is imposed on him or her by the individuals or a collective body with different values and beliefs to his or her own. He therefore argues that lack of willingness by the citizens of a particular society to obey the law is the main cause of instability in that social order. According to the Rawls’s ‘liberal principle of legitimacy” can only be used in such way that all citizens would be expected to endorse the law. In this regard, the use of political power must therefore fulfill the requirements of the citizens or the criterion that is necessary for reciprocity. The set of laws must be accepted reasonably by the citizens in this perspective, it is important to realize that the power of the people prevails in determine the success of particular law. The societal fundamental arrangements with regard to politics must be universally and freely accepted by the people and no just because they are minor or not informed about such laws. In this way of argument, Rawls believe that the people whom the law has coerced have to accept the law freely. This is important since it serve to address the problems of legitimacy. In this context, Rawls is giving light to his argument. It does not mean that justice delivered to the diverse composition o the society have to capture all the views oif the people. However, the coerced people should freely accept the law even though they are against their conception and not because the laws have been imposed on them. In this way, Rawls explains the first section that the power is based on the citizens. This explains why we cannot deliver justice in a non democratic society since the majority rule would prevail against the minor groups in the society or larger groups. But since the power is collectively bestowed on the people, it is possible for the individuals to accept freely these laws if there are not in line with their point of perspective and hence justice is delivered to them. In the writings of Rawls in the theory of justice, he asserts that for proper conception of the justice and its stability, it must create its own support. In this perspective, the subjects of a particular law in a well ordered society have to develop the deposition to act in a way that is in line with the principles autonomously and for the sake of that particular society. An ordered society as explained by is a society in which the conception of justice is public and implemented by all the individuals. This has resulted to Rawls’s arguments receiving support from cross-section of the society. In this principle, there is nobody who accepts something less but all accept something that is equal to the other individuals. The imposing of some ideas in the society by few individuals would only be acceptable if it benefits the whole society as a whole and not just the few individuals. In this perspective, it is therefore important to note that all individuals in the society are treated equally. The idea of reasonable citizens also stems from Rawls’s arguments on justice and democracy. Reasonable citizens are those citizens who would want to live in the society together with other individuals with regard to the values and norms that are acceptable to all of them. They are also willing and ready to abide by the rules and laws that are acceptable to each other. In this regard, the reasonable citizens need an assurance that all others in the same society would abide by the laws and riles just as they do. In other words, the reasonable citizens would want to live in the society in which the political power is used legitimately. This explains the coexistence that exists between different individuals in the society. We can therefore argue that because the reasonable citizens are who they are, they do not impose their views and interest on others whom they live with within the society. When the existing law is accepted by all, it is possible for the people in that society to live together without conflicts since they have high levels of tolerance to one another in the society. With regard to the idea of reasonable citizens, they understand that people are brought up from different backgrounds, religion, and morality and with different philosophy. However, reasonable citizens understand that these issues form the basis for disagreement between different people and hence it is not possible to enforce their own view of the world to those individuals who have reached conclusions and are therefore limited. The original arguments by Rawls are also very interesting as they create a hypothetical state of equality. In this regard, the decision makers are stopped from choosing principles that would favor an individual or group as this is not democracy. As Rawls explains, “No one knows his or her place in society; no one knows her or his class position or social status; no one knows what abilities or handicaps he or she will have; and no one knows her or his conception of the good or his or her psychological tendencies” (Cahn, 454). This therefore means that everyone has equal opportunity as well as is subjected to the same scrutiny by the law governing all the people. This creates a level playing ground with respect to law because all the citizens are equal. This equality forms the basis for the application of the law and hence justice is delivered. In other words justice is impossible without equality which demonstrates the democracy in the system. The original positions in Rawls’s arguments also supports the principle that. “Social and economic qualities are supposed to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and attached to positions and offices open to all” (Cahn, 406). This principle applies to the basic structure of our society and hence they are capable of regulating the rights and duties of the people in that society. This is done through the fair distribution of the economic and social advantages. In this context, power would therefore be based on fairness and hence influence most decisions in our society. However, this does not mean that the distribution of wealth must be equal; however, this distribution must be to the advantage of everybody in the society. As stated by Rawls, “While the distribution of wealth and income need not be equal, it must be to everyone’s advantage, and at the same time, positions of authority must be accessible to all” (Cahn, 406). In this context, Rawls argues that the economic barriers are very dangerous since there are the main avenues for social injustices. It is important to note that these social barriers are detrimental since they prevent people from seeking equal positions in public institutions or in employments. This is because the people lack education and hence cannot compete effectively in the job market. Protecting the basic rights of the individuals as well as ensuring that the process in our society are democratic such that the individuals have a fair chance to compete effectively are important in human flourishing. This is the only way we can deliver justice to all as improved and fairness in competition is what is needed for all individuals. Democracy therefore forms the basis for the societal decision making as well as for the management’s team and political figures in our society. Generally, Rawls’s arguments are true reflection of justice, democracy and our society. While there exist different individuals in the society with diverse nature of interests, it is possible that these individuals may not stay together and in peace if the common law is not freely accepted by then. The autonomous nature by which the reasonable citizens accept the reasonable laws and then they willingly abide by the same laws because their neighbors in the society also abide is the core of this argument. Economic and social equality in the distribution of resources or advantages therefore forms the basis for deliverance of justice since individuals are given equal opportunities to compete in the national positions as well as in the job market. This is what Rawl describes as justice to all since it acknowledges that in democracy, the political power is held by the population collectively. Democracy therefore ensures that the rights of individuals are protected and hence everyone in our society receives justice in the process. Works Cited Cahn, Steven M. “Political philosophy the essential texts second edition.” Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Read More