Distributive Justice free essay sample

The question at hand is distributive Justice. How should income, wealth, basics rights, liberty and power be distributed in a sovereign state, according to what principles? John Rawls refers to this as a social contract and offers a detail answer to that question. In this essay I will examine and assess Rawls answer to that question and then analyze his theory of the veil of ignorance in regards to my own ideas and beliefs. Before discussing Rawls the Original Position, we must first define Justice. According to Rawls, Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. In other words, Rawls believes that Justice is a set of rules or principles people would agree to under all conditions of fairness and equality. Websters dictionary has two definitions of Justice, one states, Justice, is the process or results of using laws to fairly Judge and punish crimes and criminals, while the other define Justice as the quality of being Just, impartial, or fair. The original position is a hypothetical scenario developed by John Rawls. In this made up world, the people are entering a social contract and would be held responsible for selecting a set of principles of Justice that will govern the basic structure of society. But wait, theres a catch. The people would be selecting these principles under the Veil of Ignorance, which consists of not knowing anything about their particular abilities, tastes and socio economic status within that society. Rawls states, no one knows his place in society, his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he now his fortune in the distribution of natural assess and abilities, his intelligence and strength. Rawls takes into account that everybody will always act to their personal interest but he believes by denying the people of the world any specific information about themselves it forces them to act morally. According to Rawls, Moral conclusions can be reached without abandoning the prudential standpoint and positing a moral outlook merely by pursuing ones own prudential reasoning under certain procedural bargaining and knowledge constraints. Rawls is for ertain that the principles agreed to under the Veil of Ignorance would fairly allocate the world resources across the board and better represent society as a whole because nobody would know their socio economic status within that society. For example, deciding whether slavery is Just or ethical, the veil of ignorance would force one to consider whether he is going to be the slave or the slave owner. According to Rawls, all rational people using the Veil of Ignorance will adopt his principle of Justice from the original position. The principles of Justice consist of the liberty principle and ifference principles. The liberty principle would be used to establish a political establishment; this establishment would be used to equally give everybody the basic rights and liberties. These liberties include freedom of speech, rights to vote, holding public office, the duty to keep promises, fairness and the right to be treated accordance to the letter of the law. Rawls used the first principle as a pre requisite for the second principle. Rawls states, for a society, to organize itself with the aim of property in order to punish thieves. He believes, that the Judgment made about the rinciples of Justice in the original position are most likely to be reasonable if everybody are playing on a equal playing field and have the same bargaining power. The difference principle would be used to instruct the people of the hypothetical scenario how income, wealth, power, social and economics inequalities should be distributed within the society. Rawls argues that inequalities are unjustifiable unless it is beneficial to least advantage. Rawls states, while the distribution of wealth and income need not be equal, it must be to everyones advantage, and at the same, ositions of authority and offices of command must be accessible to all. The difference principle wouldnt be a law of the state but rather a principle by which the people assess what the constitution or social contract of a society should be. In conclusion, Rawls take on social contracts is very fascinating because he didnt give an historical theory on how government exist but rather why government exist, what is the purpose of government, why should it exist, what makes it government legitimate and what rules people should agree to live by. I have thoroughly explained what Ra wls meant by the Original Position and his principles of Justice. I dont totally agree with Rawls that the people of his experiment would accept his theory of Justice under the Veil of Ignorance. One of the primary reasons why I disagree with Rawls is because I think it would be extremely difficult to get the world to agree on a set of principles even if they had an imaginary blindfold about their current life situations. Some nations are a so large according to their GDP that I find difficult to believe that hey forfeit their top spot to have an equal playing field across the board. As a middle class college student, I would love to see Rawls theory of The Original Position come into fruition because it would be financially and socially beneficial to me; however, I might think otherwise if I was given the task to write this paper after I graduated College. Im in a prominent field and expect to make a pretty decent living for myself post graduation, so I believe accepting to undergo Rawls social experiment under those circumstance would leave me in a worst position.