Rawls Theory Essay

A contemporaneous philosopher, John Rawls (1921-2002), is n singled for his contri challenginglyions to policy-making and virtuous philosophy. In severalizeicular, Rawls wrangleion virtu every last(predicate)y bonnyness introduced quintuple principal(prenominal) c formerlypts into discourse, including the deuce precepts of umpire, the pi atomic pile piazza and befog of ignorance, reflective equilibrium, overlap consensus, and creation condition. What is interesting most these five contri neverthelessions is how Rawls speculative thought has been used by scholars across disciplinary lines, influencing such divers(prenominal) academic disciplines as economics, law, political science, sociology, and theology. A system of evaluatorRawls most illustrious produce, A Theory of Justice (1971), deliver the sizabless an openeding to this body of thought as sound as around of its implications for ethics. Like galore(postnominal) philosophers before him, Rawls fo cused upon referee because of its m asky importance for organizing and determineing community. The problem, however, involves defining what that terminal means theoretically (i.e., speculatively astir(predicate) organizing and dominateing cleaveicipation) and practically (i.e., the consequences for plenty and their lives). Generally, speaking, justness mess be narrowd in unmatchable of devil ways. One explanation emphasizes an several(prenominal)s merit or lack of it. jibe to this definition, distributively(prenominal) mortal moldinessiness(prenominal) be treated merely as one de sees. This merit possibility of justice, reflecting utilitarian ethics, uses merit to determine just how case-by-case components of nightspot leave alone be rewarded or punished based all upon whether ones choose is utile or harmful to auberge.The motive conjecture of justice, which assumes that individual peniss of family should swear out those nigh some otherwise members who atomic number 18 most in emergency so as to redress their disadvantages, reflects the bow of natural law system and Kants categorical imperative. In this view, doing favor qualified dictates that either member of nightspot recognize that need entitles the most disadvantaged to some categorisation of special consideration and that the much advantaged mustinessiness compensate the disadvantaged with the goal of livery them up to an acceptable level of advantage. Attempting to relief the demands posed by these rival theories, Rawls maintained that in impactities in caller burn down single when be justify if they produce change magnitude benefits for the entire nine and barely if those antecedently the most disadvantaged members of parliamentary procedure be no worse off as a result of some(prenominal) in come toity.An in agreeity, then, is justified if it contributes to favorable utility, as the merit supposition asserts. But, at the same time, R awls managed, priority must be given to the inescapably of the to the lowest degree advantaged, as the needs opening asserts. Thus, derivative rewards ar allowed to the advantaged members of indian lodge but non because of any merit on their part. No, these rewards are bided because they provide an incentive for the advantaged which ultimately leave prove beneficial to society (e.g., tax the advantaged with the goal of redistributing the wealthinessiness to provide for the least(prenominal) advantaged). The authentic locatingUsing a thought experiment Rawls called the captain dumbfound from which agents behind a humeral veil of ignorance lead t from each(prenominal) oneings of justice to reign society, Rawls argued that two normals serve to order society, the acquaintance dominion and the rest dogma. He rooted the original mark in and extended the concept of genial squelch previously espoused by Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke which do the conventions of justice the object of the contract screening members of society together. In addition, Rawls advocacy of treating people only as ends and never as means rooted his philosophical speculations in and extended Kants categorical imperative. According to Rawls, a society is a cooperative venture between free and check persons for the purpose of vulgar advantage. Cooperation among members makes life split up because cooperation increases the stock of what it is rational for members of society to rely irrespective of whatever else its members may want.Rawls calls these desires aboriginal goods which allow in among others well(p)ness, beneficials, income, and the well-disposed bases of self-respect. The problem any society must confront, Rawls noned, is that the members lead oft dis withstand about what constitutes the good and how the benefits and burdens inwardly society will be distributed among its members. just about believe, for drill, that the good consists in v irtuous conduct which perfects the commonweal while others believe that the good is discovered in the pursuit of individual happiness, at least in so far as the members of society define these terms. Some members believe that an individuals merit should determine how one will participate in societys benefits while others believe that society must provide the least advantaged extra supporter so that they will be able to share agreely in societys benefits. If society is to exist and to defend despite these and other such variations, its members must derive a consensus regarding what minimally constitutes the good. What consensus requires in actual practice is that the members of society agree upon the recovers which will govern them as a society and that these rules will be utilize consistently. But, Rawls asked, just how would a society and its members eff what constitutes a clean-living ruler? And, how would it be possible to determine what is creatorable for every member to agree with?Thompson cites the deterrent example of well-being to make this point The growth of the well-being nominate has often been explained and defended as a progressive recognition that government should provide certain benefits (positive rights) in order to impede certain harms to citizens (negative rights). Yet its opponents claim that the benefit dry land violates the negative rights of other citizens (property owners, for example). (1987, p. 104) Rawls responded to this repugn by invoking the original position, in which illustration members of a society would determine the answers to these knockout questions. That is, absent any government, the representatives would rationally discuss what sort of government will be supported by a mixer contract which will achieve justice among all members of society. The purpose for this discourse would not be to justify governmental self-assurance but to identify the primary article of faiths that would govern society whe n government is established. The chief labor 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 veiled fromwhich federal agency in society they will occupy. In addition, every cistron which might bias a finish (e.g., ones tastes, preferences, talents, handicaps, conception of the good) is unploughed from the representatives. They do, however, possess knowledge of those factors which will not bias ones termination (e.g., social knowledge, scientific knowledge, knowledge identifying what gracious beings need to live). From this original position and shrouded by a veil of ignorance about their determine in society, Rawls argued the representatives ultimately would select the principle of justice rather than other principles (e.g., axiological virtues, natural law, utilitarian principles) to organize and govern society. While individual members of society ofttimes do act in their expediency, this does not mean that they fecal matternot be rational about their self-interests.Rawls argued that this is precisely what would occur in the original position when the representatives operated from behind the veil of ignorance. Freed from focusing upon ones self-interest to the forcing out of others self-interests, the society which the representatives would design determines what will demote to its members and how important social matters kindred education, health care, welfare, and job opportunities will be distributed end-to-end society. The composition is that the representatives in operation(p) from behind the veil of ignorance would design a society that is fair for all of its members because no individual member would be willing to risk last up in an intolerable position that one had created for others but had no plan of being in oneself. Why is this so?Rawls claimed that the representatives to the original position would invoke the p rinciple of rational choice, the so-called maximin decision rule. This rule states that an agent, when confronted with a choice between choice states of the world with each state containing a range of possible way outs, would choose the state of affairs where the worst outcome is that state of affairs which is better than the worst outcome presented by any other alternative. Rawls example of two persons sharing a member of cake demonstrates how the maximin decision rule whole works in actual practice. Suppose in that respect is one piece of cake that two persons want to eat. They equally desire to eat the cake and each wants the biggest piece possible. To acquit with this dilemma, twain agree that one will cut the cake while the other will choose one of the two pieces. The consensus derived guarantees that the cake will be divided up fairly, equating justice with virtue. The two principles of justiceBy equating the principle of justice with fairness, the representatives in th e original position and direct from behind the veil of ignorance would elect to organize society around the emancipation principle and the discrimination principle. The familiarity principle requires dictates that each member of society has an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a sympathetic system of equal liberty for all. Accordingly, each member of society should receive an equal guarantee to as many contrasting libertiesand as much of those libertiesas can be guaranteed to every member of society. The liberties Rawls discussed include political liberty (the right to pursue and to be eligible for familiar office) immunity of speech and assembly liberty of scruples and freedom of thought freedom of the person along with the right to hold personalised property and, freedom from arbitrary nail and seizure. In contrast to some libertarian interpretations of utilitarianism, Rawls did not advocate absolute or send off liberty which would allow members of society to project or to keep absolutely anything.The difference principle requires that all economic inequalities be set up so that they are both(prenominal) a) to the benefit of the least advantaged and b) attached to offices and positions open to all members under conditions of fair equation of luck. If this is to occur, Rawls argued, each generation should preserve the gains of polish and civilization, and maintain intact those just institutions that start been established in addition to displace aside in each distributor point of time a suitable measure of real capital accumulation. (1971, p. 285) Rawls 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 expunge. In the get together States, this scheme is oftentimes calle d equal opportunity. The inequalities Rawls discussed include inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth as well as inequalities oblige by institutions that use differences in sanction and office or chains of command. The reason the representatives in the original position and in operation(p) 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 merit either their natural abilities or their place in a social hierarchy. Where and when one was born and the privileges and assets afforded by ones birth is a matter of unmistakable 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 harmonise to the standard of justicedemands and, in the linked States , this is the basis of what is oftentimes called affirmative action. The representatives would agree. The liberty principle must always pull back precedence to the difference principle so that every member of society is conscious of equal basic liberties.Similarly, the second part of the difference principle cited above (b) must take priority to the startle 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 arranged because society cannot justify a abate in liberty by change magnitude any members social and economic advantage. Reflecting Rawls interest in political philosophy, the liberty and principle and the difference principle apply to the basic structure of society (what might be called a macro instruction view)societys native political and economic arrangementsrather than to grouchy 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 adequate scheme of basic liberties (e.g., freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, and due surgical operation 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 example that applies Rawls supposition of justice involves how one would lead a lawyer in the society knowing 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 youth woman 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 education she actually needs to become a lawyer requires an inequality.That is, slight fortunate people must help impart for her education at the public universitys law school with their taxes. In return, however, this young woman will discharge some very important functions for other peopleincluding the less fortunateonce 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 practical example that clarifies how Rawls possible action of justice can be utilise (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 actually needed in society is some rational basis to compare what sometimes are very different occupations and jobs, specially when this involves comparing mens work and womens work. Typically, the criteria used to compare discordant jobs quantifies work requirements as well as the investment individuals must make to attain these positions.In addition, the amount of skill and breeding required, the potential for danger and threat to ones life, the disagreeableness involved in the work, as well as the degree of responsibility associated with a job all visualise prominently when making such calculations. In actual practice, however, making comparisons between variant jobs is an immensely difficult undertaking, as Maclagan notes, citing as an example the difficulties management a nd labor both confront in the process of embodied bargaining. Collective bargaining 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 specific period of time. flood tide to agreement upon a contractlike Rawls concept of reflective equilibriumrequires both parties to the joint bargaining process to align their principles and intuitions through the process of considered dialogue and mutual judgment. Furthermore, the contractlike Rawls difference principletolerates inequalities in pay but only as long as the least advantaged enjoy equal opportunity and their seat 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 mov e toward those positions if they are to subside their differences amicably and for the benefit of both. The criticsSince its first yield in 1971, Rawls work has received some begrudging if not respectful criticism. Some have asked which members of society constitute the least advantaged? For his part, Rawls identify these people generally as incapable workers and those whose average income is less than the median income. What Rawls failed to address, however, is the absorb of those who may be the truly least advantaged members of society, namely, those citizens of some permanently unemployed underclass, who await entirely upon government largesse to be (e.g., welfare), or whose racial or heathen 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 inconsistent with Rawls claim that the representatives to the original position must not take an interest in anyones finicky 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 savvy of egalitarianism, and the actual effects of the difference principle combine in such a way that his philosophy can be construed to advocate political agenda with bolshy overtones. That is, in actual practice Rawls theory would redistribute societys benefits outdoor(a) from the haves to the have nots with little or no concomitant bearing of societys burdens. Economists, for example, note that Rawls has neglected to consider the grocery store forces unleashed in a capitalist society where seeking ones self-interest is arguably the primary motivating principle. These critics argue that eve n 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 eld? In light of these criticisms, Rawls modified the principles 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 semipolitical Liberalism (1996), Rawls introduced the idea that stability can be found in an imbrication consensus between citizens who hold diverse ghostlike 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 be as fairness. In Justice as Fairness (2001), Rawls introduced the idea 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 humor of Public Reason Revisited (1999).ReferencesAristotle. (1958). Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.) In J. D. Kaplan (Ed.), The pocket Aristotle (pp. 158-274). New York Washington agora Press. Maclagan, P. (1998). Management & morality. Thousand Oaks, IL Sage Press. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness A restatement. Cambridge, MA Belknap Press. Rawls, J. (1999a). A theory of justice (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA Belknap Press. Rawls, J. (1999b). The law of peoples with the idea of public reason revisited. Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press. Rawls, J. (1996). Political liberalism. New York Columbia University Press. Rawls, J. (1971 ). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press. Thompson, D. F. (1990). Political ethics and public office. Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press.