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

Rawls: Theory of Justice

Extracts from this document...


In this essay I intend to give an account of Rawls' arguments for justice and fairness as outlined in his A Theory of Justice and demonstrate that, while noble in intentions his theory is somewhat problematic. Furthermore I plan to demonstrate why I don't necessarily agree that: "social and economic inequalities can only be justified if they are to the benefit of the least advantaged". Rawls Theory of Justice is an universalist system of justice. In the tradition of Kant, Locke and Rousseau it seeks to address the issues surrounding the social contract theory in an egalitarian manner in attempt to provide an answer to utilitarian approaches that have gone before from the likes of Jeremy Bentham and J. Stuart Mill. Inspired by David Hume he seeks to give an account of the circumstances of justice and endeavours to incorporate a Kantian style approach to morality. His theory is concerned primarily with distributive justice, thus seeking to design an approach that will provide a guide for the governing of the distribution of benefits and burdens inherent in society. His distributive theory is an outcome-based theory of justice, and measures justice according to how well it delivers in reducing inequality. It is thus an egalitarian theory to the problems of society. ...read more.


to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. What it amounts to ultimately is that people don't necessarily deserve their talents, and are thus not morally relevant and thus it is quite acceptable to penalise or reapportion the result of 'luck'. I'm inclined to side with Nozick in that the maxim principle is neither reasonable nor just ultimately. It could only be applied, as he suggests, if primary goods fell "like manna from heaven"2however we know this is not the case in real life. Rawls' maximin prevents the more industrious in society from the full enjoyment of the fruits of their labour. He wants us to treat our fellow humans as means to an end. While I wouldn't go so far as to suggest, as a number of anarcho-capitalist's have argued over the years, that all taxation is theft and that the 'invisible-hand' can justly apportion scarce resources in all instances, it seems to me Rawls part a) of his difference principle undermines the very goal of his first principle of equal liberty. By calling on the state to control, and that any gains be redirected to the worst off, then it is not so hard to envisage a state of affairs whereby the society falls into sort of malaise. ...read more.


In Rawls defence he seems to acknowledge at least some of the problems that meritocrats and libertarians are likely to point out. The rebuttal to criticisms of his justice as fairness method of designing society would likely be from a position known as 'positive liberty' -which refers to ones ability and opportunity to exercise ones own potential and which society should provide for a minimum standard-and which was identified as distinct by Issiah Berlin in his essay "Two Concepts of Liberty"3 from the type of 'negative liberty' of which Nozick subscribes. The argument indeed has some merit. Having been critical of Rawls it is also hard to get a grasp of how a Nozick's system could ultimately work realistically without descending back into a Hobbesian "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" state of affairs. The lack of true resolve inherent between the various utopian systems of justice perhaps point to an over riding truth that there can never be any single and universal theory of "justice as fairness" that all people will find truly satisfactory. And that an amalgamation of laissez-fare capitalism, yet still providing of a financial safety net, and that doesn't unduly penalise someone according to race, sex or social standing should be the desired goal of any system that could claim to be truly fair and just. . ....... ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Philosophy and Theology 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 University Degree Philosophy and Theology essays

  1. Kant's Philosophy

    Anselm, Descartes: Kant proclaims this proof inefficacious not only because God is not the object of intuition, but also because the passage from the phenomenal world (thought) to the noumenal world (reality) is illegitimate. * Cosmological Argument: Kant declares this argument inefficacious because it is based on the principle of

  2. Do you agree with Jeremy Benthams dismissive view of human rights as rhetorical nonsense ...

    Moreover, 'there is category difference between many rights' (Goodwin 2007: 245). Mill associates that with education, which 'helps a child's development' and this is a right to a child to get educated but it has been turned into obligatory duty and thus has gained negative meaning among certain age groups.

  1. World Poverty and Human Rights Philosophy Essay. This philosophy essay is critical analysis of ...

    Yet, the fact of the matter is that we, as people of under this social contract of egalitarianism, gain even more than the mutual advantage alternative that Gauthier and Narveson uphold. This is due to the fact the extra utility that is gained from the egalitarian agreement is undefined and

  2. According to Rousseau, what was more important: the society/state or the individual?

    than acting out what could have been of his own selfish motivations - that of preserving the lives of his offspring. Brutus was seen to be defending the rights of the republic at a great personal cost. In this vein, David's work is in agreement with Rousseau's philosophy in that


    The tanks which broke the "Hindenburg Line' were hot, cramped, mechanically unreliable and only thinly armoured. Some 179 tanks were out of action after the first 24 hours of fighting, 65 of them knocked out by enemy fire and the rest bogged or broken down.

  2. Russell's Theory of Descriptions

    theory, but which arise as problems if definite descriptions are treated as singular terms. He uses these puzzles to test his theory, much like "experiments in physical science"8 for the logician. The first may be named the puzzle of "Informative Identities"9.

  1. Is a universal standard of justice possible?

    This is shown in his quote: ?If we agree with the notion of a global community, then we must extend our concepts of justice, fairness, and equity beyond national borders by supporting measures to decrease global warming and to increase foreign aid.

  2. Egalitarianism accentuates inequality

    I would argue that any form of egalitarianism is an excuse for laziness and irresponsibility. It wants to convince people that they are not responsible for their outcomes, that if anything goes wrong in their lives it is somebody else?s fault.

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