Economic Inequality Unjust John Rawl Analysis
Is Economic Inequality Unjust? Whether you are born into poverty or into the richest family in the world, all individuals would agree that they didn’t have a choice of what family and culture they wanted to be born into. Do you think it’s right to help those that are less fortunate or not help them because they have opportunities themselves for a better life? Throughout this essay, it will be looking at two philosophers, John Rawls and Robert Nozick, who have opposing views and arguments when it comes to dealing between the rich and the poor, along with the economic inequality problems amongst the world. . According to Rawls, he also has a strong view that economic inequality is only just if it is to the advantage of those who are worst-off. He explains that we are not all equal when it comes to wealth and income, but everyone should be allowed equal opportunities to become wealthy or to do good with their life. Rawls explains two principles of justice, the liberty principle and the difference principle. The liberty principle is when everyone has equal rights to liberties just like others enjoying the same liberties. Inequalities should be arranged so everyone has an equal chance and that no one person would be denied from occupying a position they wanted. Our basic freedoms include, freedom of speech, liberty, and the pursuit
…show more content…
It is to help people see that they are all the same, The veil of ignorance hides people’s place in society. For example, they don’t know if they are rich or poor, smart or unintelligent, so if they don’t know that they are these things, they will most likely choose the fairest principle. Rawls agrees that when we don’t know our position in society we will most likely be equally concerned for others. We would be concerned with individuals less fortunate in society because it could be possible (under the veil of ignorance) that we could be just like
It is to help people see that they are all the same, The veil of ignorance hides people’s place in society. For example, they don’t know if they are rich or poor, smart or unintelligent, so if they don’t know that they are these things, they will most likely choose the fairest principle. Rawls agrees that when we don’t know our position in society we will most likely be equally concerned for others. We would be concerned with individuals less fortunate in society because it could be possible (under the veil of ignorance) that we could be just like