Democracy And The Problem Of Distributive Justice

Equality, fairness, and equal distribution are concepts that are embedded in social justice. Individuals living in harmony for mutual benefit living in a state of society are set out by social contract. This paper will firstly show, the background of the philosophy of social justice. Then it will focus on John Rawls Theory of Justice. Secondly, It addresses the stages of the Theory of Justice, It then historical nature of social justice in conjunction with western philosophy. Lastly it will look at the diversity of philosophical and ethical thought.

ABSTRACT. Adapting the traditional social contract approach of earlier years to a more contemporary use, John Rawls initiated an unparaleled revitalization of social philosophy. Instead of arguing for the justification of civil authority or the form that it should take, Professor Rawls is more interested in the principles that actuate basic social institutions —he presupposes authority and instead focuses on its animation. In short, Rawls argues that “justice as fairness” should be that basic animating principle.

In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism cannot be defended against the injustice objection. Utilitarians may be able to reply to the injustice objection in some cases by invoking one of two replies, the ‘Long term consequences’ reply, in which utilitarians will avoid unjust actions that increase short-term utility because in the long-term they will not lead to the greatest good. The other reply that may help utilitarianism avoid injustice in some cases is the ‘Secondary principles’ reply, where some rule-based principles such as not murdering (because it generally decreases happiness) may avoid injustice. However, I will focus on the ‘bite the bullet’ objection,

John Rawls wrote several highly influential articles in the 19950`s and 1960`s, his first book, A Theory of Justice (1971), revitalized the social-contract tradition, using it to articulate and defend a detailed vision of egalitarian liberalism. In Political Liberalism [PL] (1993), he recast the role of political philosophy, accommodating it to the effectively permanent “reasonable pluralism” of religious, philosophical, and other comprehensive doctrines or worldviews that characterize modern societies. He explains how philosophers can characterize public justification and the legitimate, democratic use of collective coercive power while accepting that pluralism. (Richardson)

The constituents of a just society varies among the minds of humans. Throughout humanity, people have fought for what they believe is an ideal just world. Their perceptions of justice is dependent upon their upbringing, experiences, and surroundings. One can loosely define a just society in which the basic rights of humans are fulfilled. Nonetheless, as people’s views of justice are put in place, the meaning of a just society based on their outlooks becomes more intricate. Based on my own personal perspectives, a just society is an environment where people have access to all the necessities that a human must have to survive and where wealth is although not equally, but fairly distributed among everyone. Anke Graness’ Concepts of Justice in

I claim that an attractive theory of distributive justice can be constructed by blending David Hume's ideas about the origins and purposes of justice with Ronald

Before we can answer these questions it is important to establish what is meant by the term ‘just'. ‘Just' in this case means ‘morally just', I think, but differences of opinion exist as to its meaning. For the purpose of this essay, I shall take ‘just' to mean ‘fair' in the way Rawls indicates when he writes about the veil of justice in 1971: the every-day-sense of the term the average person would agree about.

Ask yourself, “What is my contribution to society?” and “What do I expect in return?” Justice, liberty and equality remain at the forefront of the American way. Securing these, however, is key, with reference to the contentious debate on these rights. Philosophers John Rawls and Robert Nozick present countering views on achieving liberty and justice. On one hand, Rawls’ view of justice would maximize liberty equally among all socioeconomic groups through his notion of the Veil of Ignorance, framed in accordance with two principles. This notion supports big government, excessive taxation, and a welfare state. Nozick’s theory of justice, the Entitlement Theory, deals primarily with the unjust distribution of property, while placing personal accountability with the individual. Admittedly, Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance theory is a fair process, per se, but his unfolding of that notion, along with supporting principles actually subjugates the poor and underprivileged because it inhibits

One of the most prevalent topics in modern-day American politics is the rising wealth gap. This drives the question, at what point do inequalities of economic liberty and social justice become unjust? There are three main views that speak on the subject. In his book Theory of Justice, John Rawls follows a high liberal tradition of thought, asserting that a distributive pattern of justice is most correct. On the other hand, in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia, Robert Nozick argues for an emergent approach to justice, rooted in libertarian philosophy. Lastly, John Tomasi, in his book Free Market Fairness, offers the most compelling argument of the three. Tomasi purports that the market democratic approach to justice is the appropriate way to achieve much needed harmony between economic liberty and social justice. Market democracy, as Tomasi stated, is “a hybrid”. Market democracy is a philosophical attempt to bridge over the ideological divide between the two liberal traditions of libertarianism, as defended by Nozick, and high liberalism, as defended by Rawls. Tomasi’s market democratic hybrid is most compelling, because rather than state that either economic liberties or social justice are paramount, as the libertarians and high liberals do, respectively, market democracy states that social justice and economic rights are not mutually exclusive, and that they are integral to a just society.

Taxpayers are paying to keep Horacio- a murderer- alive with the help of dialysis. Due to the fact, taxpayer’s money are involved, an open public discussion is permissible. The key central issue in the discussion is whether prisoners are entitled to health care. To put it simply, are prisoners entitled to health care from taxpayer’s money; in addition, should society provide and pay for it.

Justice applied to a society successfully plays a harmonious balance between the individuals within the society, and the society a a whole. Henceforth a basis of neutrality, objectivity, and impartiality are needed lay the groundwork for developing a just system to govern societies distribution of rights and liberties. However justice also encounters the dilemma of proper distribution of wealth, status, power, and individual needs within the society. Philosophers John Rawls and Robert Nozick both have competing theories that attempt to theorize how an ideal society can combat these intricacies of justice to create a just society for all members that places everyone on the same playing field. While both philosophers Rawls and Nozick offer

Political philosopher John Rawls believed that in order for society to function properly, there needs to be a social contract, which defines ‘justice as fairness’. Rawls believed that the social contract be created from an original position in which everyone decides on the rules for society behind a veil of ignorance. In this essay, it will be argued that the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. First, the essay will describe what the veil of ignorance is. Secondly, it will look at what Rawls means by the original position. Thirdly, it will look at why the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. Finally, the essay will present a criticism to the veil of ignorance and the original

Communitarian critics of Rawls have argued that his A Theory of Justice provides an inadequate account of individuals in the original position. Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argues that Rawls' conception of the person divorces any constitutive attachments that persons might have to their ends. Hence, Sandel asserts that Rawls privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals at the expense of communal interests. I do not find Sandel's specific criticisms to be an accurate critique of what Rawls is doing in A Theory of Justice. However, this does not mean the more general thrust of the communitarian analysis of Rawls' conception of the person must be abandoned. By picking up the pieces

Rawls goes on to expand on the principles of justice that he proposes. In general he says that these two principles apply to the basic structure of society and are meant to regulate the distribution of advantages and disadvantages. They are meant to make sure that rights and duties are equally distributed. He says, “the basic liberties of citizens are, roughly speaking, political liberty (the right to vote and to be eligible for public office) together with freedom of speech and assembly; liberty of conscience and freedom of thought, freedom of the person along with the right to hold (personal) property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by the concept of the rule of law.” He says that everyone should have the same amount of these liberties, “since citizens of a just society are to have the same basic rights.”

As continued with the previous thought it has been perceived that in cooperative societies, all individuals want to share the benefits of their efforts. Rawls argues that these societies face a problem in just how to justify and distribute those benefits, because each individual wants to maximize his or her share. He tries to solve this problem by formulating a definition of justice that adequately and fairly distributes resources to those who are involved in the creation of the resources by taking into account their role as a person and their role in society. The first step in formulating his answer is a critique of classic utilitarianism which is described as “the greatest happiness” and according to Rawls, inadequate concept of justice that it provides. ("Understanding John Rawls: Justice as Fairness (sample).")