Things Are Unfair
Rawls in his justice theory, first argues the role of justice. Considering truth and justice as the two basic propositions of our concept of justice, he stipulates that ‘’a theory or system should be changed if it is unjust and it is untrue.’’ (Rawls) Then, he examines what is the subject of it, that is to say, what we understand by justice. However, to give an idea of social justice, he explains how basic rights, duties, and social conditions are distributed by major social institutions. Moreover, assuming that, different initial life conditions affect a person’s life expectations, he claims that starkly there are inequalities because some initial conditions are more favorable than others.
On further inquiry, the utilitarian worldview is criticized by Rawls because in this case there is a contradiction since each person aims to guarantee his advantages rather than taking into account the general happiness. To achieve greater happiness for the greatest amount of people, a rational being cannot approve the calculations that maximize happiness. Instead, a rational being takes into account the permanent effects of an action on his rights. As a result, in his point of view, utilitarian principles are against our conception of equality and social cooperation in an organized society.
–
Assume That If You Were A Different Person: Original Position
To articulate the theory of justice, he discusses the initial foundations of the original agreement differently. Unlike the previous social contract theorists namely Locke, Hobbes, Kant, Rousseau, he doesn’t give an example of how men enter into society or how governments arise in the state of nature. In contrast, he sets up a thought experiment so that the standpoint of the original agreement and his formulation ‘justice as fairness’ will be understood. Being a free and rational person, we can negotiate for the form of society in the first place so that we can establish governance and agreements. Moreover, we know whether something is favorable for us or not by our rationality. The state of nature in the classical social contract theory is analogous to the original position. As has been said before it is a hypothetical condition, in addition, in this formulation, a precise definition of justice can be provided.
–
Veil Of Ignorance
Justice as fairness corresponds to a situation that people don’t know what kind of place they will possess in society, what kind of economical class they will participate, furthermore, we don’t know our identity, tendencies, interests, advantages, and disadvantages among the prospective circumstances that we will encounter, so forth. In addition, people don’t know the scene where they would end up. In this kind of situation, the life that will be coincided is arbitrary. This initial situation that agreed is almost fair because ‘’the principles are chosen behind a veil of ignorance’’ (A theory of justice,1971). We somehow agreed that we are equal as moral persons and we should be equal, assuming that we stuck behind this curtain of ignorance. If we search for a system of justice that cancels out the natural benefits and disadvantages, we come up with two principles:
The first one implies that we have equal fundamental rights and duties, moreover, we should be as free as possible, the second principle implies that equal wealth and authority can be benevolent if and only if the outcome distributed justly for the least advantaged members and the other parties of the society. If a system provides the second principle, inequalities of distribution of wealth are allowed.
–
Need-Based Justice
To sum up, Rawls’ approach corresponds to a situation; once we find out things are going wrong we can decide that what is need to be fixed and what we ought to do, since we are rational and moral beings, we can intuitively assume how life would change if we were a different person. In conclusion, we can act accordingly with this principle and decide what we will do next. According to the second principle, if we provide the maximum income for the least advantaged group of the society, inequality of distribution of wealth is negligible. It does not matter how other parties possess as long as the least advantaged party possesses the maximum income comparing to the other possible scenarios. Overall, it can be called need-based justice since it implies that the distribution should provide the best possible income for the most indigent part of society.
–
Robert Nozick’s Approach To The Theory Of Justice
Similarly, John Locke, Nozick holds a libertarian approach to basic rights, that is to say, liberty, property, and so forth. Nozick’s approach to the distribution of holdings differs from Rawls’ theory of justice as he against the conception of “justice as fairness”. For Nozick, a distribution of holdings is just if two following criteria are satisfied: Justice in the acquisition, and Justice in the transfer. Moreover, ‘’a distribution is just if it distributed by legitimate means.’’(Nozick, 1974) . However, theft, stealing, or enslaving a person is not permitted according to Nozick.
–
Justice And Distribution Of Holdings
In the acquisition principle, people can possess something derived from wild places and they can make it valuable, so, this kind of entitlement can be called just. Justice in transfer means a holding can be considered a person’s legal owning as long as it is given to him as a gift, it is exchanged voluntarily or purchased by himself.
In his famous thought experiment, Wilt Chamberlain is a talented basketball player. He improves his natural gifts, so he builds his competitive advantage through hard work and obtains his reputation justly. If people act voluntarily and give a little amount of their money to watch him, in such a scenario redistribution of money cannot be called unjust for him. Because Chamberlain dictates that he would play under certain circumstances and people agreed willingly. Furthermore, he implies that ‘’by the principle of rectification may result in violence against people’s entitlements and it may not fit the actual history.’’(Nozick, 1974).
Moreover, considering the Chamberlain example, we can intuitively accept that money transaction is just. In addition, he implies that ‘’an argument based on a historical principle or circumstances can be upset’’(BRITANNICA) because people chooses to act differently and give things to other people willingly, as a result, a mechanism stops people from wasting resources repeatedly is needed and it is hard to maintain.
–
Conclusion
At first glance, it may seem odd or abstract to consider Rawls’ approach to the social contract. However, philosophy (in this case political philosophy) doesn’t provide us tangible effects that we can observe all the time. But what if you are behind the veil of ignorance? Assume that you don’t know what kind of life standards you would face. You would be male or female, rich or poor, wise or ignorant. It is reasonable to come up with the idea of ‘’justice as fairness’’ as Rawls proposed.
And finally, Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice and redistribution. Wilt Chamberlain thought experiment is an outstanding example in the case that people’s wealth arises from hard work or natural ability. The importance of this attempt is that Nozick denies the concept of justice based on a historical escalation of a pattern. He confronts a theory that implies only the strict redistribution of holdings is just (e.g., egalitarian theory of justice).
–
Bibliography
- Nozick, Robert, 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York: Basic Books.
- Rawls, John, 1999, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, rev. ed. (first published 1971).
- Sandel, Michael. 1998. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, 2d ed. (1st ed. 1982) (Cambridge University Press).
- 1996, Theories of Distributive Justice, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- 2001, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly (ed.), Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[zombify_post]
0 Yorum