Rawls' Theory of Justice

[Wenty]

When I first learnt about this it interested me a great deal. Rawls' theory has been critcised by being ethnocentric, i.e. basing it on the american liberal democracy, which he agrees with I think.

Heres a short summary of his position http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/Forum/me...ound/Rawls.html (http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/Forum/meta/background/Rawls.html)

One of the ideas I found quite interesting was that he said we would accept social and economic inequalities in society so long as the result in compensating benefits everyone, especially the least off in society.

Many people on here say Capitalism always benefits the few etc, a view I've always been sympathetic to. Thoughts on this Theory?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Nice thread, Wenty, interestingly enough I am studying it for an exam at the moment so I was surpirsed to see this post. I will have a look over it in the next hour or so and see what I can come up with. It is somethign I had planned on bringing up.

I will be making a quick thread on Ausgustine and come back later to post on this.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Basically it is as far as I am concerned a liberla theory as Rawls would no doubt admit although it has tendencies of US capitalism I tend to think that this is not Rawls full intention especially an extreme version of this.

Here is my analysis or outline of it anyway:

Justice is essentially fairness which is only a virtue of social instuitions or practices.

There are two fundamental principles:

1. Each person when taking part in any kind of activity or affected by anybody elses has an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all.

This principle reeks of liberalism and holds the basic ideas of liberalism i.e. they are egalitarians in the sense that nobody is the natural subordinate of anybody else but that this does not entail regarding everyone as the same but that all humans are of equal worth.

2. Inequalities are aribitrary unless it is reasonable to expect that they will work to everybodys advantage.

Well I think its fair to say that this is perhaps a view that upholders of equality over the liberal idea of freedom would find contencious.

He also says justice is a complex of three ideas which are Liberty, equality and reward for services contributing to the common good.

He further makes the point clear that the offices for these services should be open to all.

There are a few issues, liberty of course is a word that can be construed for any ideologies use so I wont focus on that but when he talks of equality he has a specific view in mind from what many members here consider to be equality. His equality is one where a liberla idea of trying to gain the most extensive equality for as many as possible without disrupting anybodys freedom etc. This brings in all sorts of problems that are evident to all who lives in a 'liberal' society.

Rewards for services is also questionable, what exactly does this ential, who regulates its openess etc.


Some other points of his theory I would be more sympathetic to:

Society is made up of mutually self-interested parties and we as rational people are naturally wary or proposing a principle that is clearly to our advantage. Each person knows they will be bound by it in the future , the idea being that we all should make future commitments which others reasonable will and nobody is given the oppourtunity to make to tailor legit complaint to suit themselves.

These 'inequalities' as such work as incentives to draw out better efforts members will view them as concessions to human nature but as they are mutually self-interested their acceptance of inequality is merely acceptance of the relations in which they stand.

[Wenty]

Very thorough, I'm sure this is acts as a useful revision tool for you too!

Picking up on a few points:-


Society is made up of mutually self-interested parties and we as rational people are naturally wary or proposing a principle that is clearly to our advantage...

This part of Rawls' theory seems a bit crude. It seems to be giving in, or further more allowing, the selfishness within all of us, However, I can well empthaise with the thinking behind it. We are, more often than not, motivated by self-interest. Is there any way we can form a system which doesn't manipulate this part of us? Che's idea of the New Socialist Man even goes as far to say we can destroy our selfish nature.

It's always troubled Philosophers in the past how to live in a society that has laws governing you etc. The reason being when you were born you have no choice as to whether you want this or not. Rawls' theory is at least applicable.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Very thorough, I'm sure this is acts as a useful revision tool for you too!

Sadly enough after making all those notes which are basically just a partiasl re-writing of his essay The Right and the Good it turns out I dont have to di tin the exam so at least I had a use for them with this post!




This part of Rawls' theory seems a bit crude. It seems to be giving in, or further more allowing, the selfishness within all of us, However, I can well empthaise with the thinking behind it. We are, more often than not, motivated by self-interest. Is there any way we can form a system which doesn't manipulate this part of us? Che's idea of the New Socialist Man even goes as far to say we can destroy our selfish nature.

I guess Rawls is basically spelling out the thinking of the majority liberal minded people in this world. I empathise with this theory as well, more so now than say when I was under the spell of Marx.

I guess Rawls bypasses the whole idealist view of the unslefish man and goes straight for what he see's as an inherent part of human nature which is justified for a liberal philosopher.

[Wenty]

Do you think its logical or perhaps more importantly, practical to suggest we would accept social and economic inequalities as long as it benefited the least off in society the most? This would inevitably mean high taxes for rich people, is this enough?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well first of all if you would have asked me this six months ago I would have said yes off hand and that you werent calling for enough but these days I would be inclined to see it definately as a positive and more importantly practical step to tax the rich heavily in order to benefit the lower stratum's of society.

Whether it is enough I really cant say, what do you think?

[Wenty]

I'm sure if you're a full-bred communist this would be a Catch 22. On one hand you want do want to change society, on the other if you accpet this theory its almost like giving in to second or even third best if you like.

I think that if we're going to have to live in the society that we do live in, than we have to strive (befitting our opinions) for the most practical change. The change that aims to iron out inequalities in some way. I think Rawls' theory could work well in Latin America where Neo-Liberalism is rife.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Possibly I have more or less resigned to contemporary political philosophy for my answer to the questions of equality etc.

[Wenty]

I was sure this would interest more people as it involves a different concpetion of justice and equality than most people would hold here...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I think it would be healthy for people to maybe have a look too.

[Wenty]

But they won't! lol.

[cubist]

i finally got round to reading it,

i don't know to be honest its strikes me as correct from first impression however obtaining a balance inside social economic structre which is to A.) everyones advantage b.) open to all,

everyones advantage by this does he imply to everyone one involved or everyone alive.

and by open to all i assume it means will apply to all,

how do you construct realistic fair law that is to everyones advantage.

you see to be fair to all parties involved in a murder case is easy the objective in law that you shouldn't murder is pre accepted, but what about manslaughter, take the example of con air,

an ex ranger highly decorated, and trained to kill in various combat forms, in self defence kills through excessive force (when attacked what is excessive) someone, to be fair he would have to get off after all it was not he that was wronged in the first place irelevant of his superior training. it was his fundamental free and equal right to not be attacked.

but that would imply that the dead attacker deserves to be dead which he doesn't, the attacker has removed someone elses right to a freedom he has through malice and jealousy attacked someone, to protect him by punishing the ranger is wrong but to not prosecute and leave a terminated life terminated would not be fair to all as the attacker has family who have a free right to see justice to they're son who houldn't have died due to excessive force.

so there we have 2 issues

should the ranger be prosecuted for manslaughter through selfdefence with excessive force
what is excessive force people have died from one punch.
should the attacker be given the justice he deserves
does he deserve it

i don't see how justice can be surved as advantageous to all and open to all in this case

[cubist]

another case of would be a time to kill where a black guys daughter is raped by two white guys in redneck land on the court case he killed them both to ensure justice, and then he was tried for murder, justice? wher would you stand and how would Rawl create justice?

[Wenty]

Your lengthy analogical criticism is based on something you think Rawls thinks, which is
how do you construct realistic fair law that is to everyones advantage

I'm focusing on the everyones advantage bit. Where in his theory does he say this? Also, if he does and i'm mistaken what is he referring to when he says it?

[cubist]

Rawl must have been getting at justice, i believe that rawl believed there is no alternative scenario i beleive he feels justice can only be surved if all peoples are served from the same plate,

That in its self poses another issue, does the defendant that commited the crime which is clearly set out in legal documents and has been tuaght as wrong since his birth, deserve to eat from the same plate as the victims families, should the oppressor of freedom be given the right of defence, he has quashed another mans freedom so why shouldn't we quash his.

anyway



Rawls's theory of justice revolves around the adaptation of two fundamental principles of justice which would, in turn, guarantee a just and morally acceptable society. The first principle guarantees the right of each person to have the most extensive basic liberty compatible with the liberty of others. The second principle states that social and economic positions are to be (a) to everyone's advantage and (b) open to all.

i am no philosopher i read very little off my own back when it is in front of me i will read analyse and respond, if you can show me more of rawls theory i will analyse my questioning myself.

you are the philosphers how do you think rawl would initiate justcie in the cases. how do you interpret trawls justice when applying it to the sensitive scenario set out in my ananlysis.

[Wenty]

The theory is more complicated than your making out.


The second principle states that social and economic positions are to be (a) to everyone's advantage and (b) open to all.

This interpretation of the theory isn't very good. It doesn't mention the 'veil of ignorance' or the 'original position'. I'll find a better source.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1643/rawls.html

This isn't bad. The second paragraph explains it better i think.

[cubist]

damn that background hurts will read and address

[cubist]

a) a schedule of basic rights, including liberty of conscience and movement, freedom of religion, etc., and b)equality of opportunity


even though this slightly expands, on the last the same critique still exists,


the defendant has a basic right to all those things,


even though i may have shortsightedly looked into it why do you not respond to the analysis?

what do you think rawl would have done in those situations

[M.L]

If the veil of ignorance would be able to proceed, can anyone neglect it. I mean no person, that has no idea of it's position in a future society will risk the oppurtuity to be certain to get food for the day.

As far as concerned "the ranger" my first impulse is that even though the ranger used excessive force he is still the one on the right side of the law when defending himself, it was his life or the attacker's! Then we have the attacker and his family...

This is as far as my brain can come at the moment :)!

[Wenty]

the veil of ignorance is a hypothetical situation. Rawls is supposing what people would allow if they were in this 'original position'. I don't think your situations cubist concern him, its not what hes getting at all i don't think.