In the above example, the maximin rule work by ensuring that the people in original position is not concern about distribution of value but the socio-economic arrangement in ensuring the maximum minimum.
4- The Basic Principles of Justice
Rawls (Shaw and Barry, 2001) deliberated that people in the original position will consent to two basic principles, namely: -
- Everyone shall have equal and similar rights to the most extensive social liberty.
- Social and economic inequalities be redistributed to satisfy two conditions: First, it must be attached to all positions and the offices must be equally open for all under equal right conditions; secondly’ it has to be the greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society.
Rawls express that the first principle takes priority over the second and the liberties that he meant are more inclined towards freedom of thoughts, conscience and religions.
5- The Difference Principle
In justifying inequality in a society, Rawls advocated that the inequality must benefit the least advantaged group in the society. His view is that this will allow situations where the inequalities will correct the imbalance of wealth distributions. Putting it simply, this means that a worker who puts in extra hours should be paid accordingly if the effort results in overall increase of society's cake i.e. everyone will better. Therefore, the worker should be paid extra even though the payment will result in inequalities.
Criticism and Objections of the Theory of Justice
Every theory on morality has been criticized and John Rawls is no exception. While he has been very clear on his objective in wealth sharing, John Rawls' idea is criticized for various issues from various schools of thoughts. Due to space constrain, only major objections are listed down.
1- The conflict by depicting of egoist characteristic in the original position.
As explained earlier, the original position indicate people as self-interest, individualistic approached i.e. egoist. Egoists are people who will undergo pain as long as long-term interest is advanced for their benefits. Egoist also have environmental knowledge of current and future views thus egoist self-interest meaning differs than the self-interest meant in Rawls’ original position.
Whilst Rawls assumed that people in the original position are egoists, the fact is that not everybody is egoist (charity workers, philanthropist, parents etc.). Since there can be non-egoist influence in the original position, it will not produce justice as advocated by the principle (Shaw and Barry, 2001).
2- The Original position
The idea of people in original position seems to be too farfetched as it seems the ability for people to return to such nature is impossible (Treanor, 2003). However, according to hypothetical social contract theory, people could achieve such nature as it an assumed scenario as opposed to original position (Shaw and Barry, 2001).
Thus the critics argued that the original position couldn't be achieved in view of the egoist influence and the assumption that original position cannot actually happen.
3- The Veil of Ignorance
Veil of Ignorance allows people in the original position to be rational, objective and impartial in making decisions. However, this cannot be true as there is egoist influence i.e. some people gamble, take risks, and practice favoritism in making decision. Whilst Rawls argues that the veil of ignorance is supposed to cut such influences, these influences cannot be controlled in view of the current socioeconomic structure (Jedicke, 1997). Its also a concept forces society to forget its own characteristic vis-à-vis the society and this is nearly impossible to do.
4- The Difference Principle
Nozick (2003) criticize Rawls' theory on the grounds that the difference principle of distribution will allow government intervention in correcting it. However, this is conflicting with the liberty values in Rawls basic principles of liberty. Thus, Rawls theory would allow unfairness and legitimacy in view of the intervention by government in redistribution of wealth and economic goods.
My views
I view egoist in the original position not in conflict with Rawls liberty values as egoist may benefit others as long as there is compensation (Shaw and Barry, 2001). Compensation comes in many ways for example it may be the expectation that a good deed will be compensated by well-being in afterlife. Thus, even a samaritan, charity worker or parents may be an egoist i.e. with the expectation that God will compensate them in afterlife. So it is a question how egoist is a person and what is the inclination of the egoist.
Egalitarian view is very much practiced throughout the world as an affirmative action. This is to ensure the social stability, equal opportunity and fairness. Compared to Utilitarianism, Rawls theory provides approaches that minimize abuse. Whilst, Nozick (2001) argues that such theory provides for government intervention, utilitarianism provides a wide window for oppression which that the greater number gains at the expense of the smaller number for instance, the take-over of land by the native of Zimbabwe from the whites. Even though the land legitimately belongs to the whites, the utilitarianism approach allows for such injustice. This is something that defies justice but is true to utilitarianism. However, Rawls approach provides equal opportunity such as the equal opportunity to education in US.
I also agree with the theory of inequalities within Rawls’ Theory of Justice as equality may breed mediocrity. However, if we allow inequalities, there will be section of society that has to work harder to get desirable economic goods. And there will also be sections of society that will lose its desirable goods if they don’t work hard to maintain it. This basically will result in a greater number of economic good to be distributed around i.e. the economic pie will increase to accommodate even the least advantaged section of the society.
Another facet of my view is the application of Rawls’ theory in globalization initiatives. This should be supported, as the main aim of globalization is to reduce government intervention and allowing the forces of market to dictate demands. However Rawls’ idea is to have government intervention in order to benefit the disadvantaged section of the society. As can be seen, globalization has contributed to the financial crisis in Asia, the inflation in Mexico, the Russian economic issue, and lately the South American fiasco. I believe by employing Rawls’ inequality theory, the distribution will be much more fairer and would achieve a higher level of wealth in economic gods overall.
Conclusion
Rawls’ Theory of Justice is a concept in democracy. Whilst there are objections and criticism, it is more of comparison between pockets of ideas within any two moral concepts. However in a big picture, most of the ultimate desires of other moral concepts are contained within Rawls’ Theory of Justice.
As we understand more of Rawls’ idea, we cannot help but see the truth and be convinced of its relevance in the current world affairs. True, it may seem unfair to a small aristocrat section of the society but in the end it benefits everybody. I am sure Rawls’ theory would not have worked in the pre-Christ era i.e. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle given the different structure of the society but its workable now and the society needs such a model.
In conclusion, I am convinced that the egalitarian, albeit the various criticism, is relevant to the requirement of the modern world. It has been able to meet the need to address states issue such as multiracial concept in Malaysia and equal rights in the US. He has also painstakingly made his views understandable by the general society.
Reference
-
Shaw, W.H & Barry, V. (2001), Moral Issues in Business, 8th edition, Wadsworth Thompson Learning, Stamford.
-
D’Agostino, F (1997), The Original Position, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,. Retrieved June 15, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
-
Jedicke, P (1997), John rawls “Theory of Justice” 1971, Retrieved June 15, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://infotech.fanshawec.on.ca/faculty/jedicke/rawls.htm
-
Nozick, R (2003) Two Conception of Justice, Retrieved June 17, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
-
Treanor, P (2003) The Politic of John Rawls, Retrieved June 17, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
