Comparing Rawls and Hayek - Essay Example

Comparing Rawls and Hayek Friedrich Hayek was a philosopher who was from Britain. Majority of his writings were from the experience of his world war one, since he had served as a soldier during the war. Hayek developed the theory of freedom from his need to control the mistakes he did and witnessed during the First World War. Although he acknowledges that freedom had a lot of definition, he emphasizes that the freedom he was talking about in his writing was freedom that was without any kind of coercion. Hayek in his writings shares his ideology that individuals are caught amidst freedom by reiterating that individuals are either free or not free. Hayek highlights that freedom entailed acting on an individual’s own free will and not on the will or command of others or situations. He covers all the types of freedom that he experienced in the First World War that is political freedom, personal freedom and economic freedom. On the other hand, John Rawls was a philosopher who originated from America and fought or participated in the Second World War. He was responsible for developing the theory of justice which was a concept of ethical, rationality, law, equity and fairness (Bellamy). Rawls argues that justice is fairness and the same justice is responsible for the existence of liberty within the society. Rawls believes that for social institutions to be operational or function properly, justice is necessary in forming the foundations, defining the base and also veiling the position of ignorance within the society. Hayek and Rawls both supported liberalism in their different writings and speech. They talked in unison that people were free to exercise their ideas without barriers as long as their idea were not ill motivated or malicious in any way and that the state was there to support them and ensure that their rights, that is of freedom of speech, were practiced and equally enjoyed by all individuals from different classes, ages, ethnical backgrounds and races. Hayek and Rawls both agreed that the government was created for the citizens, by the citizens and to serve the citizens and rebuffed other notion of the other way round that the citizens were meant to serve the government. They were both liberal as they preached the principles of justice, freedom and equality to the public as they both advocated for basic rights such like education, food, shelter, medication and clothing to all citizens. Both Hayek and Rawls were using the society as their main source of reference in their various thoughts and intransient differences, thereby making the citizens the centre of their struggles for freedom and justice. This is as per what they experienced in world war one and world war two respectively. The various ideas they tried to put in action were all directed towards the unification of their different ideologies, in favor of the citizens, on how things are done or should be carried out within the society (Hayek 78). Both Hayek and Rawls place emphasis on Rawls theory of the veil of ignorance intended to make us blind to our unique differences as human beings. They both campaign on the interests of democracy as they try to shun the inhabitants of a strong and peacefully democracy. They both argue that in the interest of democracy, ideologies should be placed together to accommodate the different thoughts and lifestyles of individuals coming from different backgrounds and possessing different ideologies in the society. This is because the society consists if unique human beings with unique qualities, backgrounds, class and preferences. However, Rawls and Hayek do not come to an agreement thus do not resolve their arguments in order to find solutions and how solutions are reached in different situations. In fact, they completely clash and each has their own viewpoint of the solution to their matching theories and ideologies. Rawls argues that agreements on particular matters can be reached whereas Hayek does not believe that this can happen. Hayek believes that the presence of pluralism in state can not allow for satisfactory solutions to issues affecting individuals within the society. He believes that this decision does not always echo the voice of the majority rather they are views of the selected few within the society who are mainly the high class individuals. According to him, this will mean injustice to the middle and more so the low class. Hayek and Rawls are also strong in their ideas of moral self-government. They do not agree on the fact the state or government should posses the authority to determine the ethical principles required or involved in contemporary issues in the society. In addition, Hayek’s opinion on this is focused around the misinformation coming from regimes which took power in unlawful procedures or channels. The point of disagreement between Rawls and Hayek is centered on the economic distribution of resources among citizens in the society especially on an equal basis. Hayek does not think that the distribution of wealth is possible in the presence of the principle that economics makes things complicated. By this, the philosopher means that economic planning is a tedious and demanding activity where there are specific risks like power concentration which was a threat during the economic planning process. He, therefore, strongly argues this point because he believes that individual’s economic progress is not reflected in the economic policies produced by the state in the society. On the other hand, Rawls idea on this same issue is totally different from Hayek since he totally believes in his theory of justice and political liberalism in the society. This ideology was a success on his part because he was campaigning for the America’s census but when it came to the fact that principle of economics makes things complicated, as put across by Hayek, they could not come to an understanding as they had different facts. Therefore, each individual stuck to his opinion on the principle of whether principles of economics made things complicated for justice, freedom and liberalism in the society. The major difference that can be notated between Hayek and Rawls is that Hayek treats economic matters as those of morals. However, Rawls believes that it is individual’s wide-ranging morals that brings rise to the idea of goods distribution among the citizens themselves. Hayek does not believe in the existence of common good, therefore, believes that economic distribution cannot be accurate as it is clouded by different intentions, of the citizens, which are always not for the common good of the citizens of a particular state or the society, but for particular citizens in a state. Hayek believed that the fairest way of administering to the society economic goods was through competition. He believed that competition would be the most open and fairest to all individuals at different levels in the society. Rawls believed the opposite way, in that he believed in the power of completion when allowed to function like a mechanism (Rawls 46). Both Hayek and Rawls believed that inequality in the society was responsible for the growth of new habits that was important to the entire society as these habits would lead to the emergence of security measures by different individuals like increasing their aggregate wealth and increasing the innovation in the area. However, Rawls does not deviate from their popular ideology that the benefits of a competitive economy would explain the democratic system in the contemporary world. All in all, even though both Hayek and Rawls have differing views to the solution of equality, justice and freedom in the society, they both strongly believe that these three elements must be present in any society to ensure equity and peace together with economic growth in any society. Works Cited Bellamy, Richard. Liberalism and Pluralism: Towards a Politics of Compromise. London: Routledge, 1999. Print. Hayek, Friedrich A. Social Justice, Socialism & Democracy: Three Australian Lectures. Turramurra, N.S.W: Centre for Independent Studies, 1979. Print. Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Print. Read More