Rawls says that equality is just, but that inequality is sometimes acceptable. I agree only in part: inequality is never acceptable. This is an extremely contentious point: all people are created equal, is our bold point. It seems patent that some people are gifted and some are not; it seems patent that some peoples have a certain gift - such as the Teutonic race in the case of music…
Think of a brother and sister, having happily grown up in the same house; one goes on to become a millionaire and the other is steeped in poverty. In such a case, too, we must ask: where is justice Cannot their wealth be pooled together, giving rise to a state of happy existence similar to when the two were children It is the world with its differential preferences for different virtues that gives rise to inequalities, and we must do what we can to minimize the phenomenon.
Coming to Rawls' reasons for reducing inequalities, he says that one reason is to reduce the hardships of the poor. Why are the poor poor in the first place Naturally, the poor are so because they were born poor, and rising from a depth of poverty is, in many cases, well-nigh impossible. We all know the story: poverty leads to crime, crime leads to imprisonment, which leads to further poverty a society, if it to be civilized, must first ensure that none of its citizens are allowed to fall into the hell-hole that poverty is.
The second reason Rawls gives is that some people may be treated as inferior if inequalities exist. Here, we need only take the ancient Indian society, for example: there were (and still are) four castes. The first was the priests and teachers; the second was the warriors; the third was the merchants and such; and the fourth was those that did menial work. To each his role. It was natural for a priest to look down upon a menial worker, and the society was for centuries in that condition - but only until, as is natural, human nature took over and the priests began demanding too much. To call a menial worker "lower" than a priest was to call a spade a spade: we now need only look at Indian history to see how that system failed.
Rawls goes on to hint at the idea that inequalities are designed to serve the many ends that peoples share, and that each makes contributions according to capacity. I can tentatively accept this viewpoint, but must question the ideality of a society that allows naturally gifted people to be treated in a superior way. It is human nature, yes, but it is the role of a society to minimize such aberrations.
Continuing in this socialist vein, I agree entirely with the premises of the resource distribution principle and the global distribution principle, particularly the latter. A people gets to a happy situation by developing, on its own, a structure conducive to the production of wealth. This is due to the natural gift of that people to do this. Consider, for example, the Mongoloid virtue of hard work. The culture of that race is based around the idea that hard work is fulfilling; that hard work is a duty. And what do we see reflected in the real world One can take any case one cares to - Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea. Now, think of the global egalitarian principle: socialism has not worked, but in an ideal world, it would have. That is my bold point. Why should not a certain people donate - even a small part of - their wealth to a people who have simply not been able to build a civilization for themselves, as in the so-called third-world countries Are the people of such countries not hard-working If they are, why are they underdeveloped It is well-nigh impossible to answer; all ...
Cite this document
(“John Rawls' The Laws of Peoples Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/300119-john-rawls-the-laws-of-peoples
(John Rawls' The Laws of Peoples Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 Words)
“John Rawls' The Laws of Peoples Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/300119-john-rawls-the-laws-of-peoples.
It is evident from the study that in order to recover from criticism of his theory, John Rawls constantly develops recasts, revises and expands his theory of justice. His works despite being criticized cannot be discarded since there are no alternative theories provided by Sandel. Rawls will be commemorated for his impartial model of justice as fairness.
Plato viewed that some had a better capacity for reason than others, and thus, the more rational individuals ought to be at the top of the social hierarchy because they were 'best suited' for it. By contrast, Rawls viewed inequality not as a biologically determined variable, but as one that was the product of unequal distribution.
However, people can also derive ethical standards based on a concept of duty from philosophical principles. John’s social contract theory furnishes a very vital example of formalism that influences thinking about personal ethics. This theory concerns itself with systems of establishing a way that people can use to construct a just society given the many inequalities in wealth, social status, and knowledge.
Emmanuel Kant considered the categorical imperative wherein one should only engage in actions as long as they could be extended to all members of society. John Rawls, in his Theory of Justice, proposed the idea of the veil of ignorance. The corollary of this approach is that, “.
Rawls's in his book A Theory of Justice has constructed a hypothetical theory which is system based on equality that he calls "Justice as Fairness". Rawls's social theory discusses the role of institutions in a society, which aggravate bitterness creating isolation.
However, Rawls in concept of distributive justice goes further in hypothesizing the justice theory under the justice as fairness. The justice as fairness has two principle to drive the following Rawlsian principles of justice the first one is that the liberty principle and the second is the difference principle.
Amongst his works, he is most famous for his A Theory of Justice (1971) which is regarded as a primary text in political philosophy. Apart from this, he has conducted a number of thought experiments related to determining principles of social justice. He is also
It will help the individuals being governed to live in a society that is bound by common laws for the protection and benefit of each individual. Each individual therefore agrees to be bound by commonly-accepted rules and conventions in the society in return for protection from
The dilemma is if these two concepts go together or can be used interchangeably, which in fact, are two separate entities. The laws governing the society create lots of the ethical judgments in the society. Yet, only complying
3 Pages(750 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic John Rawls' The Laws of Peoples for FREE!