John Rawls' The Laws of Peoples - Book Report/Review Example

For this essay, we consider pp. 113 to 119 from John Rawls' The Laws of Peoples. I accept some of Rawls' points, and we also make some radical, seemingly extreme, arguments. Rawls says that equality is just, but that inequality is sometimes acceptable. I agree only in part: inequality is never acceptable. This is an extremely contentious point: all people are created equal, is our bold point. It seems patent that some people are gifted and some are not; it seems patent that some peoples have a certain gift - such as the Teutonic race in the case of music. Such are the arguments commonly made in circles that might say that people - or peoples - are created unequal, and then, to each his own. But we must consider that any gifts of the sort mentioned above are God-given, God-made; it is our duty as people to minimize them. Think of a brother and sister, having happily grown up in the same house; one goes on to become a millionaire and the other is steeped in poverty. In such a case, too, we must ask: where is justice Cannot their wealth be pooled together, giving rise to a state of happy existence similar to when the two were children It is the world with its differential preferences for different virtues that gives rise to inequalities, and we must do what we can to minimize the phenomenon. Coming to Rawls' reasons for reducing inequalities, he says that one reason is to reduce the hardships of the poor. Why are the poor poor in the first place Naturally, the poor are so because they were born poor, and rising from a depth of poverty is, in many cases, well-nigh impossible. We all know the story: poverty leads to crime, crime leads to imprisonment, which leads to further poverty a society, if it to be civilized, must first ensure that none of its citizens are allowed to fall into the hell-hole that poverty is. The second reason Rawls gives is that some people may be treated as inferior if inequalities exist. Here, we need only take the ancient Indian society, for example: there were (and still are) four castes. The first was the priests and teachers; the second was the warriors; the third was the merchants and such; and the fourth was those that did menial work. To each his role. It was natural for a priest to look down upon a menial worker, and the society was for centuries in that condition - but only until, as is natural, human nature took over and the priests began demanding too much. To call a menial worker "lower" than a priest was to call a spade a spade: we now need only look at Indian history to see how that system failed. Rawls goes on to hint at the idea that inequalities are designed to serve the many ends that peoples share, and that each makes contributions according to capacity. I can tentatively accept this viewpoint, but must question the ideality of a society that allows naturally gifted people to be treated in a superior way. It is human nature, yes, but it is the role of a society to minimize such aberrations. Continuing in this socialist vein, I agree entirely with the premises of the resource distribution principle and the global distribution principle, particularly the latter. A people gets to a happy situation by developing, on its own, a structure conducive to the production of wealth. This is due to the natural gift of that people to do this. Consider, for example, the Mongoloid virtue of hard work. The culture of that race is based around the idea that hard work is fulfilling; that hard work is a duty. And what do we see reflected in the real world One can take any case one cares to - Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea. Now, think of the global egalitarian principle: socialism has not worked, but in an ideal world, it would have. That is my bold point. Why should not a certain people donate - even a small part of - their wealth to a people who have simply not been able to build a civilization for themselves, as in the so-called third-world countries Are the people of such countries not hard-working If they are, why are they underdeveloped It is well-nigh impossible to answer; all one can say is "conditions." Until one understands these vaguely-defined "conditions," it is the best we can do to distribute wealth as evenly as possible - even if by means of direct donation. Coming now to the duty of assistance, Rawls says its role is "to assist burdened societies to become full members of the Society of Peoples and to be able to determine the path of their future for themselves." He goes on to add that it is a principle of transition. I again bring in my socialist argument: how did "burdened societies" become so in the first place Is it not cruel and insensitive to leave them to their own All people are created equal, I reaffirm; it is the topsy-turviness of the world that even makes for such concepts as "burdened societies." However, Rawls' affirmation that there needs to be a cutoff point for assistance makes sense. Case in point: we have seen instances of societies - such as those in Africa - having been able to achieve nothing substantial no matter how much aid has been channeled to them. Here, the very question of aid should be based on a logical analysis, and not a humanitarian one. And this brings me to my final point: that there is a limit to humanitarianism, one that is based upon rationality. Rawls says the wealth of a society is dictated by its political culture and not by resources, and the truth of this is best seen in two extreme examples - Japan and sub-Saharan Africa. Whether or not we can bridge that gap is a measure of just how much civilization we have achieved. On the eve of Beethoven's birth anniversary, we might want to take a few words from Schiller's Ode To Joy, used in the composer's ninth symphony: "Freude, schner Gtterfunken / Tochter aus Elysium / Wir betreten feuertrunken / Himmlische dein Heiligtum. / Deine Zauber binden wieder / Was die Mode streng geteilt" (Joy, bright spark of divinity, daughter of Elysium: fire-drunk, we tread, in heavenly manner, your sanctuary. Your magic brings together again what the vicissitudes of the world have torn apart.) Yes, it is a vicious world out there, and it is our duty to make it as gentle as possible for those who will tend to get tangled in webs of inequality, oppression, and death. Read More