Political theorists, whether they are realists, or liberalists, over the centuries, have come into conflict over what they believe to be the utmost important task of the state. Hobbes believes the most important task of the state is to ensure law and order, rooting his argument in the idea of a sovereign ruler. On the other hand, Rawls, a modern theorist, firmly believes that a state should focus on realising justice within their society. While a utopian society cannot be achieved by either of these theories, I will highlight why Rawls was right in his assumption that the main focus of a state should be to ensure justice for all within their nation, through analysing and comparing the conflicting arguments of Hobbes and Rawls.
In Rawls’ paper, “Two Concepts of Rules”, he sheds light on fact that a distinction between justifying a practice and actions that fall under said practice, must be made. This distinction, according to Rawls is crucial in the debate between Utilitarianism and Retributivism, more specifically in defending the Utilitarian view against common criticisms, which will be addressed further in this essay. This essay will be examining the troubling moral question that Rawls addresses; The subject of punishment, in the sense of attaching legal penalties to the violation of legal rules. Rawls acknowledges that most people hold the view that punishing, in broad terms, is an acceptable institution. However, there are difficulties involved with accepting
Bernie Sanders once said “A nation will not survive morally or economically when so few have so much, while so many have so little”. In our society, many people experience inequalities, including racial inequality, gender inequality, and economic inequality. These social inequalities create institutionalized social barricades that most times, cannot be solved without some sort of policy that advocates equity. Inequality means that people have little or unequal access to resources such as education, housing, health care, politics, and many more. It also means that people are treated unequally by society. The adoption of egalitarianism will likely solve issues of inequality, as egalitarian policies in the past have solved the issue. Furthermore,
The upbringing of a child contains many factors, many of which correlate to where a child grows up. The people, culture, and experiences of someone’s childhood are the greatest determining factor for what kind of person they will become. So how does the nature and nurture of one’s upbringing impact the decisions that they make, and their life in general? Author Wes Moore explores this question in his memoir, The Other Wes Moore, as it relates to two lives in particular. Moore main purpose in this book is to explore the overarching impact that a collection of expectations and decisions, not always one’s own, can have on someone’s life.
Rawls’ experiment makes us think deeper and objectively which kind of society we would think just. When a political decision is made, we should try to use the veil of ignorance in order to see how fair this measure
John Rawls believed that if certain individuals had natural talents, they did not always deserve the benefits that came with having these abilities. Instead, Rawls proposed, these inherent advantages should be used to benefit others. Although Rawls makes an excellent argument on why this should be the case, not all philosophers agreed with his reasoning, especially Robert Nozick. Nozick believed in distributing benefits in a fair manner in accordance with the Entitlement Theory, which has three subsections: Just Acquisition, Just Transfer and Just Rectification. In this essay we will go over why Nozick rejects Rawls’ idea and what Rawls’ response to this rejection would be.
Rawls analogy of Colorado Springs would first argue the point that the article makes about those who could afford the light would pay for them themselves and others would do without the service. This according to Rawls would be unjust, because it would give the superiors power over the inferiors. Also when inequalities exist, it goes against his principle of social and economic equality. This specifically would prevent social justice which deals with a hypothetical consent that allows equal basic rights for all citizens, as well as the advantage citizens looking out for the good of the disadvantage citizens (Sandel 2010, p.142). According to this article, there was no contract, no agreement about the street lights which the city turned off
Singer argues that the way people in relatively wealthy countries react to situations, such as the example he mentions of the crisis Bengal faces, is unjustifiable (230). He first says that for one, unnecessary death is bad, from either hunger or lack of shelter, and then two, if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, or anything morally significant, then we must do it. Basically, by not giving to charity, we are all doing something morally wrong every day, in which might trigger certain individuals since some cannot afford to do so. In which it’s
John Rawls is probably the most influential political philosopher of the 20th century. His well-known difference principles, as well as the "Veil of Ignorance" not only show on the textbook of any students study politics but are also frequently cited by politicians in public debates. However, the Rawlsian theory of justice has received many critics as well. One thing that is attacked most, is the fact that the whole theory is mainly based on assumptions of an ideal society. It is seen as problematic by many scholars. Some, for example, think that a theory describing perfect just societies cannot tell us what kind of society is more desirable in real life. Some others critics that the assumption does not relate to reality since it neglects so many inequalities and injustice in the world like gender and race discriminations, thus cannot help to prove the society. People may also question the "Original Position" and "Veil of Ignorance" because it is impossible to happen in reality. Then, does it means all Rawls has suggested are inane and do not worth study?
In addition, the context of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is crucial to understanding Singer’s purpose. Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia and studied philosophy at the University of Oxford (389). Additionally, He was one of the leading thinkers behind the animal-rights movement and has written several books on ethical issues (389). “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” was published in 1999 and has received praise and criticism since its debut. Furthermore, the year 1999 was the bridge into the twenty-first century, and by this time, technology was evolving everyday as the world neared a new era of existence. With all this being said, the timing of Singer’s essay could not be more fitting. While the world is transforming
Human’s are and have always been flawed, imperfection is part of the human experience. Following this logic anything built by humen cannot be perfect, being made by human hands. This extends to the systems of government that men form whether we consider them good and just or not. Many of these imperfections have shown themselves over time and in response people have turned to civil disobedience. At what point can we turn against the government by disobeying the law under the idea of civil disobedience? One may use civil disobedience when there is a unjust law hurting society which is under all other conditions ignored. To be civil disobedience a demonstrations need to do only what is necessary to raise unavoidable awareness, which by
“It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbour’s child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away” (Singer, Peter). This was the main thesis of Peter Singer’s renowned 1971 essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”. During that period, the world was becoming increasingly globalized and international. As a result, this essay sparked widespread debate, which subsequently led to a breakthrough in the study of ethics. However, 43 years after the inception of this essay, is this quote still applicable today? I believe that it is, and hence, I take the stand of Peter Singer’s - that richer countries should indeed help poorer countries in need, in terms of humanitarian and development
Income inequality is rampant, and currently, it 's only getting worse. At this moment, the richest 1% of the population control nearly half of all global wealth. If current trends continue, the wealthiest 1% will have more than the other 99% within just a few years. The question is, however, how much income inequality is acceptable? Like many social issues, there is no easy answer, and people are remarkably divided on the answer. The ethical theory of utilitarianism provides little guidance on the topic, with arguments being readily made on both sides under this principle. Political philosopher, John Rawls, argues that income inequality is acceptable, but only under very stringent circumstances. In opposition to Rawls, Robert Nozick,
Rawls ' Social Justice pretend to build a society where every individual deserve to have liberty and opportunities to advance to a better socioeconomic
When discussing necessities to life, one must discuss Healthcare and health care reform. Our society is in desperate need of health care reform because of the millions of people without health insurance. History shows us the government programs generally do not work. Soto, C. (2012). In my opinion programs like social security, Medicaid and Medicare are losing money at a fast rate but yet we still pay into it. Free clinics and free programs generally are not as easy to access due to long waits and inconvenient hours. I want to used Rawl’s Veil of ignorance is a device used to determine how we should allocate scares resources such as health care and medical resources. Moreno-Terenero & Roemer John discuss Rawls theory of justice also called