"A Theory of Justice"
PHIL103
A Rational Choice After reading John Rawl’s “A Theory of Justice” and applying its components to the ideal societies of Singer, Rand, and Arthur, I believe that from the unbiased and rational state of the original position I would choose to live in Arthur’s social order. I want to begin with my reasoning for rejecting the ethically egotistical society that Rand would support as well as a society under Singer’s utilitarian beliefs. From the original position, I would not choose a society where what one ought to do is act only from one’s self-interest. Although the initial thought of acting for one’s self-interest seems like a positive thing for one’s goals and happiness, one must consider that everyone else is also living without regard for others as well, including you. A society in which its leaders are creating laws and making decisions that are for personal benefit, as opposed to the benefit of those living under their leadership is concerning. The paradox of ethical egoism, that if you only focus on yourself, it will eventually be self-destroying because others may regard you as selfish and will not like you or want you around leads me to believe that I may risk hurting myself in a world where my interest is my only concern. A society based on self-interest seems unstable, that people would frequently turn on leaders, that friends may betray you for personal gain. Therefore, from the idealized situation of the original position, I rationally choose to reject this society. Although Singer’s ideal society seems to be modified from pure utilitarianism due to his belief that one should give as much as they can to eliminate suffering "without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance." I feel that “comparable moral importance” is a blurry statement. Singer seems to believe that one should give as much as possible to everyone, no matter how far away, just until one is above poor, that they only have what one needs to live and eat. The veil
A Rational Choice After reading John Rawl’s “A Theory of Justice” and applying its components to the ideal societies of Singer, Rand, and Arthur, I believe that from the unbiased and rational state of the original position I would choose to live in Arthur’s social order. I want to begin with my reasoning for rejecting the ethically egotistical society that Rand would support as well as a society under Singer’s utilitarian beliefs. From the original position, I would not choose a society where what one ought to do is act only from one’s self-interest. Although the initial thought of acting for one’s self-interest seems like a positive thing for one’s goals and happiness, one must consider that everyone else is also living without regard for others as well, including you. A society in which its leaders are creating laws and making decisions that are for personal benefit, as opposed to the benefit of those living under their leadership is concerning. The paradox of ethical egoism, that if you only focus on yourself, it will eventually be self-destroying because others may regard you as selfish and will not like you or want you around leads me to believe that I may risk hurting myself in a world where my interest is my only concern. A society based on self-interest seems unstable, that people would frequently turn on leaders, that friends may betray you for personal gain. Therefore, from the idealized situation of the original position, I rationally choose to reject this society. Although Singer’s ideal society seems to be modified from pure utilitarianism due to his belief that one should give as much as they can to eliminate suffering "without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance." I feel that “comparable moral importance” is a blurry statement. Singer seems to believe that one should give as much as possible to everyone, no matter how far away, just until one is above poor, that they only have what one needs to live and eat. The veil