The Rawls Justice for Fairness Conditions - Research Paper Example

April 29, Law Introduction Rawls espoused the fairness-based justice concept. The paper delves on the Rawls Justice_forfairness conditions. The paper focuses on the social_contract ingredient of Rawls’ justice concept. Rawls’ effectively incorporated the social_contract ingredient to craft a better Justice_for fairness philosophy. Question 1: Rawls’ Justice Concept John_Rawls espoused a different justice version. The Rawls version intended to reconcile both the equality concept and the liberty concept. Rawl’s justice concept enhanced the social contract concepts of Philosopher David_Hume’s philosophy concept, Immanuel Kant, and John_Locke. Locke envisioned that people adhered to the social contract in order to live as separate human beings in an equality-filled community (Sakala, 2014. p. 8). The above philosophers espoused social contract provisions should be grounded on justice concepts or law provisions that were previously approved by the residents through popular democratic voting (Forster, 2014, p. 17). Further, Rawls’ justice concept focused only on individuals. Specifically, Rawls envisioned social contract as a social_cooperation concept where people decide on how they will regulate claims against one another. The concept includes implementation of basic rights, as well as duties of each citizen (Rawls, A Theory of Justice, 1999. p. 3). Rawls affirmed Rousseau’s social contract concept states that the contract entitles the members of society to enjoy equal opportunities in life (Rousseau, 2012, p. 10). Rawls did not delve in the relationship between humans and animals. Similarly, Rawls did not enter into the world of human- nature relationship. Rawls was committed to the humanism philosophical concept (Kosch, 2007, p.73). Furthermore, Rawl’s justice focused on the responsibility of government institutions to ensure the social contract provisions are strictly implemented (Rawls, 2009, p. 20). The government institutions ensured the contract provisions benefited the most residents. The provisions motivated the people to contribute to the success of society’s justice and equality system (Voice, 2013, p. 11). Failing to do so, the government mercifully penalized as well as rehabilitated the violators of the social contract provisions, our nation’s laws (Strange, 2011, p.7). To achieve the Rawls’ justice type, the author espoused the implementation of the fair justice environment, which includes utilitarianism’s benefit. Utilitarianism espoused ethical laws should generate happiness and other benefits to the most number of residents in the community (Perry, 2014. p. 6). Under the environment, the justice concept decision makers must combine both the original_position as well as the ignorance veil when picking mutually_acceptable justice-related concepts. When picking one or some alternatives from several alternative choices, the decision makers must pick mutually-preferred justice concepts. Further, Rawls forecasted that people will prefer the Rawls justice brand over the utilitarianism-based concept or the right-libertarian concept. Further, the Rawls justice concept took into account the social_contract propagated by French Philosopher Jean-Jaques_Rousseau, John_Locke, and Thomas_Hobbes. The philosopher Thomas_Hobbes espoused social contract is a contract that requires all members of the community and the stat must comply with the provisions of social contract. The provisions of the social contract included penalties, fines, and other punishments for violations of the social contract. For example, the social contract proposed laws must ensure comity, equality, and improvement in the lives of the United Kingdom residents (Mooney, 2012, p. 10). Furthermore, both Hobbes and Rousseau affirmed the absence of a social contract will bring chaos to society. For example, members of the European Union nations cooperate to ensure border security between nations are kept safe and secure from criminal activities (Great_Britain_Parliament, 2013, p. 47). The community and the government, with its police department and jail rehabilitation facilities, must help ensure crime or law violations are reduced to allowable levels (Shapland, 2013, p. 14). Anyone can state he has the freedom to rape the neighbor’s 13 year old daughter. Likewise, the drug addict street urchin can claim he has the freedom to burn the neighbor’s home in broad daylight. Lastly, the jobless and penniless street children (children living on the street corners) may claim they have the right to eat a full meal from the nearest expensive restaurant. Rawls’ justice concept spring off from the social contract justice-related concept. To understand more the social contract, examples can be given. One good example occurs when some of the residents refuse to obey some of the government’s prescribed laws, statutes, or policies. The citizens can ratify changing some of the provisions of the prevailing social contract provisions. Likewise, the citizens can vote to change the current political leaders for espousing unfriendly or harsh government laws, policies, statutes and other social contract provisions. Likewise, the people can rise up to arms and violently overthrow the government leavers for instituting unfriendly or harsh laws, statutes, and other social contract provisions. In our United Kingdom parliament, the members can vote to revise the laws in order to improve the current favorable results of the jail facilities’ rehabilitation programs (Great_Britain_Parliament, Rehabilitation of Prisoners, 2005, p. 243). Going back to Rawls justice concept, the original position referred by Rawls in his justice book referred to the popular social contract concept espoused by Hobbes, Rousseau and other philosophers during their time periods. The Rawls concept of ignorance veil is very important justice concept ingredient. The concept proposed all law decision proponents and decision makers must not use personal biases or preferences in the espousing, approving, and implementation of the justice provisions. The ingredient issue is very important. For a person who owned a chain of stores who is at the same time a member of our European nation’s law making body would object to a proposed law that will increase store sales tax by 50 percent. On the other hand, a government employee will happily agree to the tax increase on store sales. The 50 percent store sales tax increase will increase government funds. Consequently, the government can offer an increase in the government employees’ monthly salaries. The tax increase encourages the employees to petition for an immediate approval implementation of salary increases. Further, another example will clarify further Rawl’s ignorance veil issue. A person who is the sole owner of a hospital serving elderly patients and who is at the same time a member of our nation’s law making body would object to a proposed law that would offer 50 percent discount to elderly patients. The new law will reduce the healthcare facilities’ average monthly patient revenues. With reduced patient revenues, the owners of the healthcare facilities have lesser funds allocated for the repair and maintenance of the healthcare facility equipments. With the reduced patient revenues, the owners of the healthcare facilities are forced to cut down on personal travel, entertainment, and other related expenses. On the other hand, a member of the law making body, an elderly patient of the hospital, would selfishly approve the new 50 percent discount law on elderly healthcare patients. The patient will benefit from a lower healthcare expense. Consequently, the saved healthcare expenses can be used to pay for the elderly patients’ other necessary expenses. The elderly patient can used the saved healthcare expenses to buy more food, clothing, and other personal needs. Further, Rawls’ justice concept bordered on the issue that best societal laws, statutes, and other social contract provisions must benefit the most number of community’s residents. For example justice in the employment scene required everyone has the equal opportunity to land the lone job vacancy. In our current society, the average company sets up requirements in the hiring, promoting, training, and firing processes. For example, one company required the preferred job applicant to be a college graduate. The condition immediately prevented those who did not finish college from hoping to win the vacant job. Moreover, the above discussion is understandable. Companies normally demand self-serving fairness. Companies feel male employees can better perform certain jobs. One such job is the carpenter job. However, the Employment_Equality Regulations of2003 prohibits the hiring only of male carpenters (Hoffman, 2011, p. 214). Further, Rawls espoused the implementation of the first justice principle. The principle dictated that every person has the god-given right to most number of liberties issues. However, the exercise of such liberties must never infringe or violate the similar number of liberty issues of other persons. The liberties include the freedom to vote for one’s next political leaders. Another liberty is the right to declare one is running for a government elective position. However, Rawls exempted some of the liberties from the above discussion. For example, people must not exercise rights that violate certain laws, statutes, and other social contract issues. For example, the typical person cannot freely engage in the selling of cocaine and other legally prohibited drugs. The typical person must not freely prevent another person from entering into a valid legally binding contract. Further, individuals have no right to prevent the current Laissez_Faire market condition. Under the condition, sellers normally sell their products and buyers acquire their preferred products at freely- given market prices. Further, Rawls espoused the second justice principle. The principle emphasised all in inequalities should generate benefits to the poor or least economically_advantaged members of the community. The inequalities border on both the nation’s economy and the nations’ society –related issues. Under this principle, the government pegs higher taxes on business entities that generate higher net profits. The high tax collections are used to pay for the basic needs of the poverty-stricken members of our United Kingdom society. In addition, companies are encouraged to allocate some of their business profits to charitable and other related non-profit organisations. Furthermore, Rawl’s second justice principle espoused all departments, units, or offices must deliver equal services to all individuals. Discrimination in the delivery of government and private services must be avoided at all times. The offices, departments, or entities should never drive away the underprivileged or poor citizens from its service activities. Moreover, Rawls strongly prohibited any activity that may increase the economic, social, political, and other conditions of the poor members of our European nation. Instead, Rawls espoused that all business and individual transactions must help improve the conditions of the poverty-stricken and disadvantaged members of society. Consequently, Rawls believed that business can generate high net profits. However, the high net profit companies must donate some of its profits to help the poor members of society. This is done by sending funds to charitable entities. In turn, the charitable entities use the donated funds to help feed the street children, pay for the medical expenses of the poor members of our United Kingdom society, clothe the jobless naked street people, deliver medical aid to the elderly members of society, and other related charitable activities. Further, Rawls insisted that one should not suffer from one’s birth condition. Some individuals are born into rich families. Consequently, the rich families can afford to give the growing child the best food choices, the best medical services, the best schools, and more than enough money to travel to different tourist destinations. However, some individuals are born into poor families. Such individuals are forced to eat only one meal within one day and cannot afford to enroll in London’s Westminster University. It is common knowledge that United Kingdom’ rich families will not freely share or donate their vast financial resources, including money and property, to the poor members of society (Erreygers, 2012, p.113). To resolve the above poverty issue, justice requires the government and the rich families must help the poor members of society. Instead of shunning away the starved street people, the government must provide for the food, clothing, and shelter needs of the homeless, penniless, and other destitute United Kingdom society members. The rich families should donate funds to the charitable organizations. The government will help private entities set up charitable entities. Rawls’ Justice_as fairness: attractive state management guide. Rawls’s justice fairness concept offered a very attractive guide to how our United Kingdom state must be run. For example, justice means the government must penalize those who are not fair in their everyday dealings with other individuals. For example, Britain’s Sex_Discrimination Act of 1975 strongly prohibits hiring on the basis of one’s gender. Both genders must have fair chances of being hired for the vacant job (Kenney, 2013, p. 98). Further, our nation’s Disability_Discrimination Act of 2005 penalizes companies for refusing to hire someone who is disabled (McFarquhar, 2011, p. 75). The European_Court of_Justice affirmed age discrimination occurs when company fringe benefits are offered to children of employees within the 5 years old to 9 years old age group (Great Britain_Government Equalities_Office, 2010, p. 46). Our United Kingdom Crime & Disorder_Act of 1998 penalizes assault on a person because of one’s differing religious beliefs (Doe, 2011, p. 82). The social_model described disability as the result of certain societal structures. Similarly, the same model defines the same disability as the consequence of economic structures (Terzi, 2010, p. 42). Further, Rawl’s justice concept can be used as the basis for the implementation of strict justice provisions in our modern United Kingdom society. The United Kingdom Criminal_Justice Strategic_Plan was implemented from 2008 to 2011. The plan focuses on delivering swift and fair justice to the victims of crimes and other social contract violations. The courts must deliver the full force of the laws’ punishments on the convicted United Kingdom criminals (Joyce, 2013, p. 103). The justice system has checks and balances to remedy seemingly erroneous court judge decisions (Nelken, 2013, p. 50). Furthermore, Rawl’s fairness –based justice is firmly grounded on everyone religiously implementing the society’s prescribed rules, statutes, and laws (Rawls, A Theory of Justice, 1999. p. 3). The state shall ensure the laws are fairly implemented (Mooney, 2012). One person should not be unfairly treated in our justice system because of some discriminating factors. Failure to obey the law will result to possible severe legal penalties, forfeitures, cancellation of prohibited transactions, incarceration, and fines. This is the essence of Rawl’s Original Position concept of justice (Kosch, John Rawls, 2007, p. 60). By accepting to live in the community, the residents surrender some of their rights (Rawls, A Theory of Justice, 1999. P. 14). Next, the government can force its laws on the citizens in order to prevent chaos erupting among the residents (Williams, 2014, p. 22). Moreover, Rawls insisted the greatest justice benefits should be showered on the least advantage or poor members of society (Mansell, 2013, p. 73). In this regard, corruption by the rich to ensure the innocent poor will lose court cases. In reality, unequal justice prevails in many communities. The rich use their money to ensure the court judges pen decisions that favor the rich. The members of the community are forced to implement the unjust decisions of the corrupt court judges (Weale, 2013, p. 32). Rawls envisioned the social justice contract should prioritize incorporating the values as well as ideals of a democracy-based society (Freeman, 2006, p. 4). Additionally, Rawls insisted that the governments have the major responsibility to protect the citizens from natural calamities, criminals, health issues, and other unfavourable events (Hanlon, 2014, p. 48). Rawls observed that people and the government leaders cannot easily enter or leave a community. Consequently, the government leaders and the residents must obey the laws imposed by the state because the laws are presumed to be fair to the most number of residents (Estlund, 2012, p. 34). Rawls proposed that fair justice can only be achieved if all the laws must be based on the common aspirations or preferences of the most number of residents (Rawls, A Theory of Justice, 1999. p. 8). For example, a community where the majority of the residents and law makers are women would never propose and approve laws that are biased against the female gender (Curtis, 2010, p. 119). To Reiterate, Rawl’s fair justice concept, original position based, includes only law makers who do not any selfish interests in the proposing, analysis, and approval of the community’s laws, statutes, and other provisions should be preferred in the crafting of the laws or statutes (Easteal, 2014, p. 288). Conclusion Summarizing, Rawls proposed the fairness-grounded justice concept. Rawls emphasized incorporating the social_contract provisions will ensure justice that is fair to the most number of people. The social_contract principles dictate that the people should vote, through their chosen law makers, for the approval of resident-oriented fair laws and statutes. Government should not harass the citizens to obey its unpopular laws or statutes. Evidently, Rawls effectively included the people-proposed social_contract provisions to create a better Justice_for fairness government policy, benefitting the most number of residents. References: Curtis, C. (2010). Postapocalyptic Fiction and the Social Contract. Lexington: Lexington Books Press. Doe, N. (2011). Law and Religion in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Pres. Easteal, P. (2014). Justice Connections. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press. Erreygers, G. (2012). Inherited Wealth. London: Routledge Press. Estlund, D. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Forster, G. (2014). John Rawls and Christian Social Engagement. Lexington: Lexignton Books Press. Freeman, S. (2006). Justice and the Social Contract. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Great_Britain_Government_Equalities_Office. (2010). Equality ACT. London: The Stationery Office Press. Great_Britain_Parliament. (2013). EU Police an Criminal Justice Measures. London: The Stationery Office Press. Great_Britain_Parliament. (2005). Rehabilitation of Prisoners. London: The Stationery Press. Hanlon, R. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Rights in Asia. London: Routledge Press. Hoffman, D. (2011). The Impact of UK Human Rights Act on Private Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joyce, P. (2013). Criminal Justice. London: Routledge Press. Kenney, S. (2013). Gender and Justice . London: Routledge Press. Kosch, M. (2007). John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice. London: Oxford University Press. Kosch, M. (2007). John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mansell, S. (2013). Capitalism, Corporations and the Social Contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McFarquhar, H. (2011). Key Concepts In Criminology & Criminal Justice. London: Palgrave Macmillan Press. Mooney, G. (2012). Social Justice and Social Policy in Scotland. London: Policy Press. Nelken, D. (2013). Comparative Criminal Justice & Globalisation. Surrey: Ashgate Press. Perry, J. (2014). God, The Good, and Utilitarianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Rawls, J. (2009). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Rousseau, J. (2012). On the Social Contract. Chelmsford: Courier Corporation Press. Sakala, J. (2014). The Role of the Judiciary in the Enforcement of Human Rights in Zambia. Colorado Springs: Image Press. Shapland, J. (2013). Justice, Community Civil Society. London: Routledge Press. Strange, C. (2011). Qualities of Mercy: Justice, Punishment & Discretion. Toronto: UBC Press. Terzi, L. (2010). Justice & Equiality in Education. London: A & C Press. Voice, P. (2013). Rawls Explained. Chicago: Open Court Press. Weale, A. (2013). Democratic Justice and the Social Contract. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, D. (2014). Rousseaus Social Contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More