Rawls's in his Book A Theory of Justice - Essay Example

Rawl’s, A theory of Justice Equality of opportunity provides individuals to compete against each other on equivalent terms to achieve their place ina social setup. Compared to caste system where the assumption is that society contains hierarchy, and superior and inferior status is determined by birth, equality of opportunity is a unique theory, which promises competition on equal terms. Rawlss in his book A Theory of Justice has constructed a hypothetical theory which is system based on equality that he calls “Justice as Fairness”. Rawls’s social theory discusses the role of institutions in a society, which aggravate bitterness creating isolation. He questions, is there any system to arrange society, which can keep these issues within tolerable limits? And can a social system be organized on just and fair standard that it becomes acceptable to the bulk of population. According to Rawls, we all agree to have a just social contract with our free will without knowing (ignorance) the ultimate consequences of our decision, which he names as “original position”. According to the original position, "no-one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength and the like" (Rawls, p 12). Thus behind this “veil of ignorance” different groups will hound their own benefits. Rawl’s explains that all the factions in this hypothetical society will adopt two basic principals: the principal of rights and duties, and the fair distribution of social and economic compensation in a society. The first principal is absolute “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others (Rawls, p 60), which provides basic rights, such as freedom of speech and expression, and the right to owe property. The first principle is more or less absolute, and may not be violated, however it can be traded for obtaining other rights. According to the second principal “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a) 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 (Rawls, 1971, pg. 303). Rawls principal 2(a) is different from the normal form of justice, however he substantiates on the ground of improving the fate of dis-advantaged people. As he explains that equality should not be enacted to deteriorate the condition of a person already in a worse situation. The 2(b) confers the distribution of offices and positions on merit basis, but all aspiring candidates should have the skills on which they will be assessed. Critics have come up with several arguments against Theory of Justice, such as Rawl’s idealism is meant to fulfill ethical ideals rather than real social dilemmas. Rawl mentioned that individuals cannot give up their basic liberties for economic or social benefit, however the ordering of the principles can still create greater inequalities, challenging the basic principals of justice and liberty. Many question the belief on equal opportunity, if those who have the required IQ and skills grab prized positions, the Individuals with severe mental or physical disabilities will eternally lag behind and will have no place in the such society. These individual with lower skills cannot compete with these intelligent individuals, applying the concept of equal opportunity on such individuals who do not meet the requirements of a competitive society is again a discrimination against the people with lower abilities. Liberalism has appeared countless times in history. According to the liberalism theory, state should not interfere in individual’s life and a person is free to choose the final good for his/her life as long as these aspirations do not conflict with state law. In plain words, the liberalism theory asks state to remain neutral in the citizen’s way of life and should treat citizens equal regardless of their national, tribal and economic backgrounds. The contemporary liberal vision is that state should be unprejudiced, life should be experienced in as many forms as many sub-cultures exists in a given society and state under no circumstances should force minorities to practice the popular good, rather the conflicting views should be accepted as an integral part of multi-culture co-existence. And it is argued that the t arbitrary use of power of governments is violation of human rights. No matter how much are such step is meant for the well being of individual, it is till interfering in the freedom and autonomy of individuals. And as and any ivdividual people have the right to choose what they want to practice, wear, what they want to lear and so on. Any one or any government who is trying to protect an individual from such rights are disregarding the human rights, which in Rawl theory is perhaps doing. Imposing one selective group on every one in a society, even though his intentions are meant for larger well being of society, but the approach is flawed. Rawl’s main error was to base his theory on yearning for happiness and create a society on his principals. Perhaps he believed that happiness means only material possession and well being, but in the modern societies it is the right of expression and living a free life are considered the most important assets, above every thing else. Justice is the chief asset in any society to settle advantages and responsibilities between individuals. The distribution of justice needs an executing body to make and enforce laws and contracts, re-distribute wealth and tax, punish the evil and award the innocent. If this system is broken up and all individuals are allowed to do what they feel good, there will no common definition of good and society would be able to function. This individualzation will lead society to chaos and state in no time will fall apart. This whole justice process is very intricate, working in a complex social system and has no comparison with free market, healthcare system or individual right and wrong. The concept of ideal society has been alive in history, since the time of Plato, Moore and Marx. It is tempting to dream of a society where people do not suffer nor are they discriminated on the basis of race, sex, religion or ethnic backgrounds. Being human it is natural to have greed, bias, temptation and siding with our kith and kin, which is equally practiced in all small and large societies, all over the world. Equal opportunity is a controversial issue, which in reality only exists when people with similar backgrounds reach similar positions, with same amount of hardwork. In real world it is not possible to create such ideal form of equality for the reason, that inequalities are often passed from one generation to another in the shape of wealth and property, and continued to next generation is successive cycles. Reference Rawl, J. (1972). Theory of justice. : Oxford University Press Stone, R. (2004). Textbook on civil liberties and human rights. : Oxford University Press. Simpson, B. (2001). Human rights and the end of empire. : Oxford University Press. John A. Edgren. (1995). On the Relevance of John Rawlss Theory of Justice to Welfare Economics. Review of Social Economy, Vol. 53. Orend.B (2001). Walzers General Theory of Justice. Social Theory and Practice, Vol.27. Alfonso J. Damico. (1997). Whats Wrong with Liberal Perfectionism? Polity, Vol. 29. Mayer.R.(2002). A Walzerian Theory of Exploitation, Polity, Vol. 34. Read More