Preview

Rawls Summary

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
473 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Rawls Summary
Justice as Fairness

Rawls first begins with discussing how we are lead to the original position. The original position is a hypothetical argument that considers a society where people do not decide what is right or wrong based on a higher power or emotion, but rather on common sense. These ideas establish justice or fairness simply based on the community’s beliefs that they create. However, these agreements cannot be made without the “veil of ignorance.” This means that all instances that would create a distortion of views must be ruled out. Thus, the people discussing what the rules will be cannot have any information about the other individual, or the society’s position. The hypothetical argument is contingent on all things being fair and equal, which means that all people involved in crating the beliefs must be free of any preconceived ideas. Another part of the equality of this situation is that every member of a society, including the minority, must be treated fairly. Rawls stated that every citizen had basic liberties and human rights that must be protected. He believed that societies need to protect the least advantaged citizen in order to be successful. We determine which citizens are least advantaged based on if they possess primary goods. Primary goods are what is needed to be a functioning and contributing member of society. These things are not necessarily monetary, but rather on psychological capabilities, historical facts, social capabilities, as well as, moral abilities being free and equal. Rawls believe that the five most important primary goods that determine advantage are basic rights and liberties, freedom to choose, responsibility, income and self respect. These things can make this hypothetical a reality and a society fair as equals.

Let us begin with how we might be led to the original position and the reason for not using it.
Now this agreement, like any other, must be entered

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    The case of Bradshaw v. Rawlings concerns events that occurred on April 13, 1975. The plaintiff, Donald Bradshaw, was seriously injured in an automobile accident. During this time, he was enrolled as a sophomore at Delaware Valley College and had been attending his class picnic. At the end of the picnic, he left as a passenger in Bruce Rawlings vehicle. Shortly after departure, Rawlings crashed his vehicle into a parked vehicle.…

    • 1036 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Backgrounds of Rawlings

    • 488 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Rawlings is a trademark multi-billion dollar company, specializing is baseball but also has its foot in with football and soccer. Rawlings is also making a break through with specialized football gear, sport clothing and sport accessories. Rawlings is the biggest baseball contributor in the game boosting our American economy. Rawlings has many celebrity endorsements in baseball for example Rafael Furcal, Derek Jeter, Jose Reyes, Prince Fielder and many more. With all these famous baseball players wearing and using Rawlings gear, people want to purchase the gear to feel like a pro. Making a break into the football world Rawlings just got its first Professional Football athlete Steven Jackson.…

    • 488 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    John Rawls’ Fairness Approach is an appropriate ethical framework to use when assessing this dilemma. This approach questions if everyone involved is being treated fairly (is there favoritism and discrimination?). The Fairness Approach examines how fairly or unfairly the actions of an individual or group distribute benefits and burdens everyone else. With this approach, consistency of treatment among persons is key. The only insistence when treatment must differ is if there is a morally relevant difference between people (Andre, Meyer, Shanks, Velasquez, 1989). There are three different kinds of justice -- Distributive, Restorative, and Compensatory. Distributive justice focuses on the benefits and burdens evenly distributed amongst society’s…

    • 183 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    HCM 420 Mastery Exercises

    • 2182 Words
    • 8 Pages

    3. True or false? Rawls' view of social justice includes people making choices to protect those who are in a lesser position in society.…

    • 2182 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The United States Pledge of Allegiance is an honorable and commendable mantra. It concludes with, “one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” Justice in the former reference is inclusive for everyone, an entitlement, granted upon birth. John Rawls position of justice is that “everyone should be treated equally and as fair as possible”. Mr. Rawls position parallels the Egalitarian theory of equality and mutual respect. This isn’t necessarily the practice because contrary to the hope for multiple factors are factored in to the outcome.…

    • 230 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Theories of justice are also referred to in the article. These theories utilize concepts by John Rawls which include ideas on how to “create an environment of opportunity and access by all to the most comprehensive range of prospects” (Colin, 2012, p. 444). This theory can lead to a society where individuals are given opportunities to succeed.…

    • 1775 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Under the Veil of Ignorance, Rawls asks us to imagine what rules we would want to exist in the world, assuming that we do not know what kind of life we would have in the world. For example, it assumes that we do not know how we will look like, how much money will we have, or what sexual orientation will we have. In this position, Rawls states that the rationally self-interested person will ask themselves, “what if I were in the position of society’s least advantaged?…

    • 585 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    John Rawls bases his Theory of Justice on the intuitive conviction that justice as fairness is the first virtue of social institutions. He argues that in order to ensure fair distributions of advantages in society, a workable set of principles are required in order to determine how institutions ought to distribute rights and duties and to establish a clear way to address competing claims to social advantages. The second principle that Rawls develops stipulates that economic and social inequalities are justifiable so long as the requirements of fair equality of opportunity have been met and if they benefit the worst off in society. Rawls argues that the requirement of improving the conditions of the worst off, known as the Difference Principle,…

    • 786 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In conclusion, Rawls’ idea of the Veil of Ignorance is an interesting one. It has faults which are heavily looked at by MacIntyre and Sandel, but it is still a substantial building ground for Rawl’s ideas. It is relevant to his position and still creates and adds character to…

    • 628 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Veil Of Ignorance

    • 412 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Veil of ignorance: The exclusion of superfluous information such as age, sex, etc. allows for the determination of choice to be rendered justly and without the difference principle, which worsens the societal situation of those members who are worst off - John Rawls. Rawls’ concept of the “veil of ignorance” is a model for adopting principles of justice and was derived from an unpublished document of the same title written by Wilfried Hinsch. The concept has been submitted as a solution for equalizing people’s personal interests and doctrines as a means for allowing the political conception of justice to be successful employed.…

    • 412 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    John Rawls Vs Nozick

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Therefore, both philosophers judge a society is just by how thoroughly its laws and policies follow their respective models rather than whether those laws and policies achieve morally acceptable outcomes. A primary difference between the two philosophies is the legitimacy of wealth distribution. According to Nozick, the possession of economic and social goods is only justified if it was made by means of just acquisitions or voluntary transfer. As a result, any form of taxation of the rich to, in turn, improve the prospects of the impoverished is unjustified and a violation of natural rights because it was involuntarily taxed from the rich. Therefore, Nozick believes there should be no safety net or welfare programs in a just state because such programs represent a fundamental violation of natural rights. In addition, Nozick finds it impossible to suggest that merely because society benefits from social cooperation, the impoverished deserve a fraction of the earnings rightly made by the rich. However, Nozick does more or less retain Rawls’ first principle of justice. Both philosophers believe that everyone in a just society deserves equal basic liberties such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the right to…

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Rawls And Nozick

    • 1728 Words
    • 7 Pages

    However, these thinkers have different ideas of the underlying premise that should form the notion of a just society, with varying interpretations of what is fair to the people. In the big picture, these differences in ideals can be appropriated into the areas of wealth distribution, and the question of what an equitable society does for its citizens. For Rawls, the conception of a society stems from a system of cooperation between people who recognize the mutual advantage that comes from shared communal effort (Rawls, 674). He believes this notion of equality is an important part of maintaining the social contract ideology. If people were behind a “veil of ignorance”, not knowing their personal status before picking a society to live in, what decision would they make? With this argument, Rawls explains that a society formed without a concept of your own original standing will uphold the fairness of a community based on mutual agreements of the people. The veil of ignorance eliminates the possibility of voting in self-interest, and since each individual could be any ambiguous member of the group, they vote in the…

    • 1728 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    According to Rawls, his principles of justice would be at the foundation of an ideal society. He goes on to explain this through a hypothetical situation he calls the “original position”. A person, who finds themselves in this “original position”, can be compared to being a newborn child who just came into the world without knowing anything about themselves, not their abilities, personality, nationality, nor social status. Any person in this “original position” is considered to be acting behind what Rawls’ calls a “veil of ignorance” (Scott, 2003). As they won’t know what their circumstances will be in this society, every person would choose fair principles that will benefit everyone equally. Rawls’ principles of justice consist of two principles, where the first principle states that a person has equal rights to as much liberties as is compatible with the rights of every other person (Scott, 2003). The second principle concerns the fair equality of opportunity, which allows anyone regardless of their background and social status the opportunity and equal right to hold positions in offices that are available to anyone, and the difference principle makes sure that social or economic inequality that occurs between people benefits every single person (Scott,…

    • 1965 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Citizens United

    • 729 Words
    • 3 Pages

    To illustrate the rights violation of the concepts of regulations and restrictions, we can turn to John Rawls theory of political equality. Rawls argues that rules and regulations need to be in place in order for everyone to have a fair and equal scheme of liberties. What Rawls means by this, is that not one person will have more of a liberty than another person. For example, the regulation of campaign contribution limited to 2,500 dollars a person. This is a regulation because it does not infringe on our liberty for political expression, but it does regulate and set rules in how to go about this type of liberty.This is important because with the regulation of 2500 dollars, then a person with more money can not give more money to influence a campaign then a person who has less money. However, a restriction does infringe of basic liberties such as prohibitions on certain language The content of political expression can be restricted. For example, a nation has an instance in which the constitution is undermined by a certain type of speech, then it can be restricted…

    • 729 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In this essay, Rawls presents a justification for civil disobedience by what he describes to be a Social Contract Doctrine where a citizenry is required to abide by laws that are made to benefit the populous as a whole while unjust laws; passed constitutionally; could be criticized in the constitutional democracy through civil disobedience. These acts will allow the majority to see what’s wrong in their actions and should only be allowed when one is subject to injustice over an extended period of time, where injustice is in clear violation of liberties and equal citizenship, and when it would be socially acceptable to protest other things of similar caliber. Rawls provides a useful explanation for why and when we should exercise Civil Disobedience,…

    • 163 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays