• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

What is liberal about John Rawls Theory of Justice? How may it be criticised?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

What is liberal about John Rawl's Theory of Justice? How may it be criticised? John Rawl's Theory of Justice (published in 1970) argues for principled reconciliation of liberty and equality. The theory is neither altruistic (focused on helping others), nor is it egoistic (self-concerned), Rawls offers a model of a fair choice situation within which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable parties of justice. But to what extent is this theory liberal? Firstly Rawls believes in the theory of a "social contract", similarly to Hobbes and Locke, which is a liberal idea. As Locke maintains, "where there is no law there is no freedom". Our individual liberty requires that others are restrained from encroaching upon our freedom and this protection can arguably only provided by a sovereign state. Liberals recognise that it would be in their interests to sacrifice a portion of their liberty in order to protect their liberties, as well as avoid the "state of nature", within which life would be "nasty, brutish and short". ...read more.

Middle

It is also liberal in its "reasoned" approach, for example where it may be necessary to trade freedoms off each other for the sake of obtaining the largest possible system of rights. The second principle of justice involves social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are of the greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society (as mentioned previously, liberal to the same extent of welfare liberalism) and that offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. This again seems to be more egalitarian and socialist rather than liberal. Liberals are committed to equality - but on the grounds that all individuals are of equal moral worth and are therefore entitled to equal rights and responsibilities, yet are born with very different talents and entitled to rewards accordingly. Rawls theory seems in some ways to be more similar to social equality or achieving equality of outcome. Rawls theory of justice demonstrates that he holds a social liberal position, which is that he values equality but also emphasises common freedoms. ...read more.

Conclusion

Therefore they should be more community based and a universal system of justice would simply not be compatible with this. Michael Sandel wrote "Liberalism and Limits of Justice" and within it criticises how Rawls asks us to think about justice whilst divorcing us from the very values and aspirations that define u as well as that the original position is abstract and implausible. He primarily seeks to use liberal moral ideals to build a new "public philosophy" in America. Walzer believes that Rawls's Theory of Justice fails to incorporate any morals or values, and instead focuses too much of the bargaining of goods. From the left wing, Robert Paul Wolff argues that Rawls theory constructs justice from existing practice and does not take into account that there may already be existing problems of injustice embedded into the ideas of capitalism, private property and the market economy. A final criticism is put forward by Susna Moller Okinb who maintained that Rawls theory could justify injustices and hierarchies embedded within the family network. She also criticises Rawls for not taking patriarchal social relations and gendered division of labour into account. ?? ?? ?? ?? Lucy Goodwin 13.3 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. Utilitarianism: Explanation And Study of Criticisms

    Just because the majority benefit, it does not mean that the action is the morally correct thing to do. Despite all the arguments against Utilitarianism, there are some valid points for the theory. It is widely accepted, many countries run by means of democracy.

  2. How and why does Locke explain the creation, value and protection of property?

    The outcome of man's labour is his property. God forced men to labour (or have property),thus creating the condition of life. The rule of propriety states that every man is allowed to posses as many products of nature as he was capable of laboring. If these products perished in his possession before he was able to use them,

  1. A Study of Carl Rogers' Theory of Personality

    The fully functioning person, in contrast, is completely defense-free, open to experience, creative and able to live "the good life". Empirical support for the fully functioning person is somewhat mixed. The openness to experience characteristic has been supported (Coan, 1972; cited in Maddi, 1996).

  2. Deontology- a theory based purely on obligation or duty.

    This idea of personal rights or side constraints actually could yield an ultimate harm to members of a society, in the sense that certain circumstances need to allow for the compromising of personal property. If a person were fleeing from a mass murder, such as the Holocaust, and seeking a

  1. Explain why the Liberals were electorally so successful so often, 1868-85?

    Gladstone was forced to resign due to his policies on the reformation of Irish universities; and the calls for clear finance management and responsibility in foreign affairs meant that the Liberals found themselves increasingly out of touch as human 'motivations' and the 'role of government' changed.11 The reasons behind the

  2. Notes on John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

    (The classic modern example of paternalistic legislation is seat belt laws, though it is unclear whether this involves a tyranny of the majority. I also don't mean to imply that this is the best example to use when arguing Mill, it is probably quite a bad example because many people are sympathetic to seat belt laws.)

  1. Power and Politics in Organizations: Public and Private Sector Comparisons

    The actions of these persons called upon to manage these organizations are constrained by external and internal de facto rules, and limitations (Rainey and Milward 1981). Comparable examples of accountability in the private sector are rare. Public/political-sector organizations are also for more 'porous' than private firms are.

  2. Compare Hobbes and Locke's views on the obligation to obey the law.

    One king should make the decisions, write the laws, and control the masses. Locke, on the other hand, felt that the people should somewhat run the government. He believed that the people should have a say in everything the government decided, including who ruled over the country.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work