Up@dawn 2.0

Saturday, April 6, 2013

14-3 John Rawls - A Theory of Justice

Rawls began with a few simple premises. He recognized that just about everyone wants to be successful (rather it be financially, or having rights and privileges, etc.), and he also suggests that the worth of one human being to the next, from a philosophical perspective, is equal. It should therefore follow, Rawls would say, that ideally, all human beings would enjoy an equal quality of life. This seems like a simple concept, but while conversing about it in class, our group found that there could indeed be surfacing problems.

Here's the thing - pure communism doesn't work that well. There is no incentive to work hard and develop new technologies. The result is that all of society suffers. However, pure capitalism has its drawbacks, as well. As Rawls notes, there will always be disparities in such a society, because some people invariably will have higher natural aptitudes than others, and will be born in circumstances that will cultivate these particular talents. These conditions are no fault of their own, because one does not choose to be born, let alone in what circumstances. You may get lucky and be born into an affluent family that cultivates the values of education and hard work, but you could also end up as the baby of an impoverished single mother with a drug addiction. But no matter where you end up, one cannot say that they deserve their natural circumstances. The same goes for possessing a talent.


So where does this leave us? Here, Rawls proposes two principles of justice. The first is that everything should be as equal as possible, including rights, responsibilities, and monetary compensation. The second is that if inequality must exist, it has to be to the benefit of those who are the least well off. There are precious rules that remain true in all but the most extraordinary of circumstances, but in the world of economics, this one has stood the test of time. This draws us to Rawls' conclusion that a difference in wealth is okay as long as that difference ultimately improves the condition of the least well off. Here's a video further depicting Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance" concept: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKBQ1Q539mQ

Sorry it's not embedded - the video manager can't locate the video from youtube for some reason...


Possible exam questions
What is Rawls' theory of justice?
What does it mean to say that someone is behind the "veil of ignorance"?

5 comments:

  1. Great summery Sean! When we were discusing about Rawls', i disagreed with my group members because i personally think i not everyone should be equal. I think whoever works hard deserves the best and ones that are always lazy (not even try to be succeed deserves to be poor. Despite all these, i agree with Rawls' theory of justice, where he said everyone should be equal under the law, because i think everyone should be equal under the law no matter what race you are.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with what Rawls says in that what people really want in life is to be successful.Also I'm not saying I agree with Mekael, but how Sean summed it up is good because its true that not all people are born into the same conditions, but people in poorer situations or different circumstances would want the same opportunity as those who were born in a better lifestyle or are generally hard-working.& even if the second point of justice was considered it would still be unfair because its picking out the people who are least well off. Though they may need it more,it's still unfair.but I guess that's the point he was trying to make when he said ,"If inequality must exist."......

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that Rawl’s first principle of justice seems to be
    more idealistic than the real world we live in today. The question comes to mind is what if we or the goverment tries to enforce equality monetary compensation, how will society be incentivised to be move productive?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers."

    - Gandhi

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous7:27 AM CDT

    How should wealt be distributed amongst individuals, based on equality. The greatest good for the greatest number has dissapeared people no longer live by these morals. As a member of miniority people dont want to be oppressed there should be freedom rather than free doom with the majority terririxing over us

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.