Week 3 Justice Theory
This paper responds to prompt one of the week three Justice Theory essay assignment, and yields an evaluation through considering various internal and external materials from weeks one through three. Accordingly, this exploration is organized in three sections. First, this paper seeks to explain how the modern social contract theorist, John Rawls’, attempts to enhance the classic utilitarian views of John Stuart Mill, as well as the classic social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Second, this evaluation posits how Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” and “difference principle” might apply to the socioeconomic issue of access (or, lack thereof) to health care in the United States. Specifically, this section relates these
…show more content…
Rawls believes the utilitarian view does not place the necessary emphasis on individuals, and though he agrees with many aspects of contractarianism, he wishes to improve beyond the classic versions of the social contract (Jurik, 2016, p. 7). Consequently, he endeavors to advance the concept of utilitarianism, and marry it with the social contract theory through his inclusions of the “veil of ignorance” perspective and the “difference principle”. Rawls’ terms his overall advancement as, “justice as fairness” (Rawls, 1993, p.48). In his 1993 article, Justice as Fairness, Rawls claims, “justice as fairness, I would now understand as a reasonable, systematic and practicable conception of justice for a constitutional democracy, a conception that offers an alternative to the dominant utilitarianism of our tradition of political thought” (p. …show more content…
Rawls’ proposes a neutral approach in applying his modern social contract logic, hence, he asserts that the veil of ignorance is necessary for objectivity. Specifically this logic establishes a position, “...removed from and not distorted by the particular features and circumstances of the all-encompassing background framework, from which a fair agreement between free and equal persons can be reached” (Rawls, 1993, p. 57). Under these circumstances, this logic directly applies to the socioeconomic issue of access to health care in the United States in the following manner. The underpinnings of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is to create a framework by which everyone receives the opportunity to obtain quality and affordable health care, and that no person should suffer financial devastation due to illness (Simas, 2013). To clarify, the lawmakers and supporters of the ACA sought reformation with noble intent for the benefit of the masses, excluding themselves, from the position described above, and through the lenses of average citizens who are not similarly situated to those who are economically stable with access to health benefits through their employers. Thus, the lawmakers demonstrated that they operated from behind the “veil of ignorance” with the design and implementation of the
Rawls believes the utilitarian view does not place the necessary emphasis on individuals, and though he agrees with many aspects of contractarianism, he wishes to improve beyond the classic versions of the social contract (Jurik, 2016, p. 7). Consequently, he endeavors to advance the concept of utilitarianism, and marry it with the social contract theory through his inclusions of the “veil of ignorance” perspective and the “difference principle”. Rawls’ terms his overall advancement as, “justice as fairness” (Rawls, 1993, p.48). In his 1993 article, Justice as Fairness, Rawls claims, “justice as fairness, I would now understand as a reasonable, systematic and practicable conception of justice for a constitutional democracy, a conception that offers an alternative to the dominant utilitarianism of our tradition of political thought” (p. …show more content…
Rawls’ proposes a neutral approach in applying his modern social contract logic, hence, he asserts that the veil of ignorance is necessary for objectivity. Specifically this logic establishes a position, “...removed from and not distorted by the particular features and circumstances of the all-encompassing background framework, from which a fair agreement between free and equal persons can be reached” (Rawls, 1993, p. 57). Under these circumstances, this logic directly applies to the socioeconomic issue of access to health care in the United States in the following manner. The underpinnings of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is to create a framework by which everyone receives the opportunity to obtain quality and affordable health care, and that no person should suffer financial devastation due to illness (Simas, 2013). To clarify, the lawmakers and supporters of the ACA sought reformation with noble intent for the benefit of the masses, excluding themselves, from the position described above, and through the lenses of average citizens who are not similarly situated to those who are economically stable with access to health benefits through their employers. Thus, the lawmakers demonstrated that they operated from behind the “veil of ignorance” with the design and implementation of the