Rawls Theory Essay

A contemporary philosopher, John Rawls (1921-2002), is nvirtuosod for his contributions to semi semipolitical and moral philosophy. In pull up s establishsicular, Rawls discussion somewhat jurist introduced five important plans into pr to from apiece match lowly oneing, including the deuce formulas of arbiter, the authorized baffle and enshroud of ignorance, reflective equilibrium, overlapping consensus, and overt modestness. What is stakeing about these five contributions is how Rawls speculative thought has been used by scholars across disciplinal lines, influencing such diverse academic disciplines as scotchs, law, political science, sociology, and theology. A scheme of justiceRawls or so famous model, A Theory of justness (1971), translates an entry to this body of thought as substantially as some of its implications for ethics. deal m all philosophers before him, Rawls focused upon justice because of its substantive importance for organizing and giv ing medication nightspot. The problem, however, involves defining what that term way theoretically (i.e., speculatively about organizing and judicature ordination) and practically (i.e., the consequences for people and their lives). Generally, speaking, justice can be fixated in maven of dickens ways. champion definition emphasizes an individuals virtuousness or lack of it. concord to this definition, each individual must(prenominal) be tr beated exactly as whiz deserves. This merit speculation of justice, reflecting functional ethics, uses merit to determine just how individual particles of inn ordain be rewarded or punished based solely upon whether ones channelise is useful or harmful to community.The need theory of justice, which assumes that individual members of conjunction should help those new(prenominal) members who ar most in need so as to redress their dis usefulnesss, reflects the influence of inhering law theory and Kants categorical imperative. In this view, doing good dictates that every member of edict lie with that need entitles the most disfavor to some screen of special affection and that the more(prenominal) advantaged must compensate the disadvantaged with the goal of bringing them up to an acceptable level of advantage. Attempting to balance the demands posed by these rival theories, Rawls well-kept that in matesities in golf-club can only be justified if they fix increased clears for the entire caller and only if those previously the most disadvantaged members of participation are no worse off as a result of any inequality.An inequality, then, is justified if it contributes to complaisant utility, as the merit theory asserts. But, at the same time, Rawls argued, priority must be given to the require of the to the lowest degree advantaged, as the needs theory asserts. Thus, differential rewards are allowed to the advantaged members of smart set but non because of any merit on their part. No, these r ewards are tolerated because they provide an incentive for the advantaged which at last impart prove beneficial to community (e.g., taxing the advantaged with the goal of redistributing the wealth to provide for the least(prenominal) advantaged). The original strength use a thought experiment Rawls called the original mission from which agents toilet a veil of ignorance s cull principles of justice to govern partnership, Rawls argued that twain principles serve to swot up society, the self-direction principle and the contravention principle. He rooted the original panorama in and extended the concept of neighborly contract previously espoused by Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke which made the principles of justice the object of the contract binding 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 amid relinquish and equal persons for the purpose of mutual advantage. Cooperation among members come tos life better because cooperation increases the stock of what it is discerning for members of society to desire irrespective of whatever else its members may want.Rawls calls these desires primary goods which overwhelm among separates health, rights, income, and the well-disposed bases of self-respect. The problem every society must confront, Rawls noned, is that the members go away ofttimes dis jibe about what constitutes the good and how the benefits and burdens within society will be distributed among its members. Some intend, for example, that the good consists in virtuous manner which perfects the commonweal maculation 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 par ticipate in societys benefits while others believe that society must provide the least advantaged extra assistance so that they will be able to share equally in societys benefits. If society is to comprise and to endure despite these and other such fights, its members must derive a consensus regarding what minimally constitutes the good. What consensus requires in actual ar look-alike is that the members of society agree upon the rules which will govern them as a society and that these rules will be applied consistently. But, Rawls asked, just how would a society and its members recognize what constitutes a fair principle? And, how would it be possible to determine what is sound for every member to agree with?Thompson cites the example of welfare to make this blot The growth of the welfare put in has often been explained and defended as a imperfect recognition that government should provide certain benefits (positive rights) in order to stay fresh certain harms to citizens (negative rights). Yet its opponents claim that the welfare state violates the negative rights of other citizens (property owners, for example). (1987, p. 104) Rawls responded to this challenge by invoking the original position, in which representative members of a society would determine the answers to these difficult questions. That is, absent any government, the representatives would keen-wittedly discuss what sort of government will be supported by a social contract which will achieve justice among all members of society. The purpose for this discourse would not be to rationalise governmental authority but to come upon the basic principles that would govern society when government is established. The chief task 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 place in society they will occupy. In addition, every factor which might preconceiv ed idea a conclusion (e.g., ones tastes, preferences, talents, handicaps, conception of the good) is kept from the representatives. They do, however, sustain knowledge of those factors which will not bias ones finale (e.g., social knowledge, scientific knowledge, knowledge identifying what human beings need to live). From this original position and shrouded by a veil of ignorance about their place 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 such(prenominal) do act in their self-interest, this does not mean that they cannot be rational about their self-interests.Rawls argued that this is precisely what would occur in the original position when the representatives operated from foundation the veil of ignorance. Freed from focusing upon ones self-interest to the exclusion of others self-interests, the society which the representatives would design determines what will happen to its members and how important social outlets like facts of life, health care, welfare, and job opportunities will be distributed throughout society. The idea is that the representatives operating 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 ending up in an intolerable position that one had created for others but had no tendency of being in oneself. Why is this so?Rawls claimed that the representatives to the original position would chew out the principle of rational preference, the so-called maximin decision rule. This rule states that an agent, when confronted with a choice between alternative states of the world with each state containing a range of possible outcomes, would ask 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 piece of cake demonstrates how the maximin decision rule works in actual blueprint. Suppose there 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 deal with this dilemma, both 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 shared fairly, study justice with fairness. The two principles of justiceBy equating the principle of justice with fairness, the representatives in the original position and operating from behind the veil of ignorance would elect to organize society around the liberty principle and the battle principle. The liberty principle requires dictates that each member of society has an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a equivalent system of equal liberty fo r all. Accordingly, each member of society should sire an equal guarantee to as many different libertiesand as much of those libertiesas can be guaranteed to every member of society. The liberties Rawls discussed include political liberty (the right to vote and to be eligible for public office) exemption of speech and assembly liberty of conscience and immunity of thought license of the person a vast with the right to nail personal property and, freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure. In contrast to some libertarian interpretations of utilitarianism, Rawls did not counsel absolute or complete liberty which would allow members of society to accommodate or to keep absolutely anything.The difference principle requires that all economic inequalities be arranged so that they are both a) to the benefit of the least advantaged and b) attached to offices and positions open to all members under conditions of fair equality of hazard. If this is to occur, Rawls argued, each generati on should preserve the gains of culture and civilization, and maintain intact those just institutions that necessitate been established in addition to putting aside in each period of time a suitable amount of real peachy 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 attain. In the linked States, this scheme is oftentimes called equal opportunity. The inequalities Rawls discussed include inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth as well as inequalities imposed by institutions that use differences in authority and responsibility or chains of command. The spring the representatives in the original position and operating 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 deserve both 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 sheer 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) sign differences. According to Rawls, this is what ethicsaccording to the standard of justicedemands and, in the United States, this is the instauration of what is oftentimes called affirmative action. The representatives would agree. The liberty principle must always take precedence to the difference principle so that every member of society is assured of equal basic liberties.Similarly, the second part of the difference principle cited above (b) must take priority to the first part (a) so that the conditions of fair equality of oppo rtunity are also guaranteed for everyone (1971, p. 162). Thus, the two principles of justice, the liberty principle and the difference principle, are ordered because society cannot justify a decrease in liberty by increasing any members social and economic advantage. Reflecting Rawls interest in political philosophy, the liberty and principle and the difference principle apply to the basic organize of society (what might be called a macro view)societys fundamental political and economic arrangementsrather than to particular 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 process 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 theory of justice involves how one would become a lawyer in the society designed 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 young 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, less fortuitous people must help pay for her education at the public universitys law scho ol with their taxes. In return, however, this young woman will perform 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 faithful pay also provides a practical example that clarifies how Rawls theory of justice can be applied (Maclagan, 1998, pp. 96-97). Noting that the principle equal pay for equal work is eminently fair in concept, Maclagan maintains that not all work is equal. What is really needed in society is some rational basis to compare what sometimes are very different occupations and jobs, especially when this involves equivalence mens work and womens work. Typically, the criteria used to compare conglomerate jobs quantifies work requirements as well as the investment individuals must make to attain these positions.In addition, the amount of skill and training required, the potential for risk of exposure and threat to ones life, the disagreeableness involved in the work, as well as the degree of responsibility associated with a job all systema skeletale prominently when making such calculations. In actual practice, however, making comparisons between dissimilar jobs is an immensely difficult undertaking, as Maclagan notes, citing as an example the difficulties circumspection and labor both confront in the process of collective bargaining. joint bargaining involves ethics because each party declares what the other ought to do. When these differences are obdurate 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 particular(prenominal) period of time.Coming to agreement upon a contractlike Ra wls concept of reflective equilibriumrequires both parties to the collective bargaining process to organise 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 situation 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 move toward those positions if they are to adjudicate their differences amicably and for the benefit of both. The criticsSince its first publication 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 unskilled workers and those whose average income is less than t he median(prenominal) income. What Rawls failed to address, however, is the plight of those who may be the truly least advantaged members of society, namely, those citizens of some permanently unemployed underclass, who depend entirely upon government largesse to subsist (e.g., welfare), or whose racial or ethnic 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 particular 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 e mbrace of egalitarianism, and the actual effects of the difference principle compounding in such a way that his philosophy can be construed to advocate political agenda with Marxist overtones. That is, in actual practice Rawls theory would redistribute societys benefits away 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 market forces unleashed in a capitalist society where seeking ones self-interest is arguably the primary prompt principle. These critics argue that even 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 ha ppened to waves of immigrants to the United States during the past two hundred years? In light of these criticisms, Rawls modified the principles of liberty and difference. reflective the question of social perceptual constancy, Rawls considered how a society ordered by the two principles of liberty and difference might endure. In Political Liberalism (1996), Rawls introduced the idea that stability can be found in an overlapping consensus between citizens who hold diverse religious 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 defined 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 luxuriant in The Law of Peoples with The Idea of Public Reason Revisited (1999).References Aristotle. (1958). Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.) In J. D. Kaplan (Ed.), The pocket Aristotle (pp. 158-274). New York Washington Square 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.