John Rawls Theory of Justice - Assignment Example

John Rawls was an American philosopher (February 21, 1921 - November 24, 2002), he wrote one of the most famous books in the 1971 also it widely reading of political philosopher and this book is a Theory of justices in this book Rawls tries to address the real meaning of distributive justice through the classical philosopher model of social contract and other philosopher tries to do this is Kant. However, Rawls in concept of distributive justice goes further in hypothesizing the justice theory under the justice as fairness. The justice as fairness has two principle to drive the following Rawlsian principles of justice the first one is that the liberty principle and the second is the difference principle. Furthermore, in the theory of justice Rawls attempts to resolve the utilitarian and deontological approach to ethics by arguing with the Kantian social contract model. However, Rawls recognized that the justice as fairness is based in the Kant's notion of autonomy. Rawls goes further and explain theory of justice as the original position principle where the justice based in the veiled ignorance, according to Rawls "no one knows his place in society his class position or social status" (Rawls, 1999 (ed), p.118). In the theory of justice Rawls support the element of the Kantian social contract philosophy, Rawls does agree with Kant's ideal of cosmopolitan constitution in term of cosmopolitan theory of justice. This essay will answer the question by critically evaluate Rawls' theory in relation to the cosmopolitan theory of justice, first of all I have to evaluate the core elements of Rawls' theory of justice and than I have to analyses these elements with leading to the cosmopolitan justice theory ( Rawls, translated by Michelle kosch 2007). In the theory of justice Rawls consider the liberty and the different principle which it change of the classical model of the social contract by explain the social inequality within a distributive veil of ignorance. Rawls in the veal of ignorance tries to explain that the individual in the society have a system of equality. Accordingly, Rawls says that each person have an equal right to the most general proposal of equal basic liberties compatible with similar rights of liberties of others (Rawls, 1999 (ed) p.53). Moreover, these basic principles are absolute and cannot be violated, an example of these right freedom from arbitrary arrest and the freedom of speech (Rawls, 1999 (ed), p.53). However, Kant's theory of social contract is based by his emphasis of innate morality, Rawls acknowledge difference and social inequality as compatible within the "justice" paradigm. For example in the term of the inequality distribution Rawls says that inequality is only acceptable in the theory of justice under the second principle. This undermines the Kantian ideas of the cosmopolitan system of justice which based in an innate moral propensity towards democracy as a result of the human intellectual independence. In theory of the rationale for being human Kant's suggests that it is the interrelationship between intellectual independence and morality this considers be that is central to concepts of democracy. In this point, there will be social inequality, Rawls goes further to justify this in his theory of justice model on the grounds that the social differences are acceptable if they are the maximum benefits to the least advantaged members of the society (Rawls, 1999, (eds) p.84) . Rawls goes further and suggests that there can be unequal basic rights in proof of fixed natural characteristics. According to Rawls " if say, men are favoured in the assignment of basic rights, this inequality is justified by the difference principle.only if it is to the advantage of women and acceptable from their standpoint"(Rawls, 1999, (eds) (p.85). However, the difference principle makes it clear that Rawls denouncement of the cosmopolitan justice principle, his argument appears to be inherently flawed in effectively sanctioning discrimination on subjective grounds. Furthermore, there is clearly a compare in propounding inviolable fundamental rights on one hand and on other hand justification of social inequality, especially with the weak subjective justifications for such breach of basic fundamental rights. This argument led to have other philosophy that supports by critics of Rawls who is Wolff, who arguer that Rawls was trying to show inequalities of pre-existing political systems to argue that the justifications of such social inequalities meant that there was effectively no injustice. However, in term of Rawls's opposition to cosmopolitan john Rawls has two theories of justice on applied the international politics and the other is applied domestic politics, the reason for disagree with cosmopolitan justice is that Rawls was worry about the stability of society with term cosmopolitan and it is only be guaranteed by an overlapping consensus of most political active citizens on the term of social cooperation. The world cosmopolitan means that takes the individual to be the ultimate unit of moral concern and have the rights to equal consideration without looking at their nationality and citizenship. Therefore the principle of justice must transcend the nationality and citizenship and must applied equal rights to all the individual of the world as a whole. The term cosmopolitan justice means that a justice without limits. The demotic theory Rawls called it justice as a fairness liberal political conception of justice and political liberalism and this theory must be consider as being the most basic moral basis of a democratic society, and in the theory of the international politics Rawls called it as the laws of the peoples which is means a political conception of right and justice that applied to the norms and principle of international law and practice. Furthermore, Rawls tries both in his domestic theorization and his international one, to articulating theories that could guarantee a peaceful of the political will order for liberal democratic societies in both locally and globally. Rawls tries to justify the political order of the democratic societies against any internal and domestic threat. In both books that written by John Rawls which is the first one theory of justice in 1971 and second is the political liberalism in 1993 and also the second one it could be called as the updated of the theory of justice, in these to books Rawls tries to demonstrate the possibility of guarantee justice and stability in internal affairs of liberal democratic societies, by given the fact that these societies are deeply divided by the different religious. In The Law of People 1999, Rawls tries to guarantee peace and justices in foreign affaires of the liberal democratic societies by given the fact that people all around the world are deeply divided by cultural and traditional. In this point, Rawls consider the international theory to justify the reasons for the liberal democratic society rather than the cosmopolitan theory for the international government or the global government (by HH Haidar, 7th-9th April 2009). Rawls theory is not lead to be apply to the domestic liberal principles of justice for all the world government or to society of the state. Therefore Rawls reject all types of institution, moral cosmopolitanism and global cosmopolitanism, Rawls did not agree to have global liberal government that support the liberal principle and justice for all people around the world in other word he did not agree to have international system that consisting from many liberal government that do more or less with the same liberal principle of justice for its citizens. In the standpoint of the institutional cosmopolitan, Rawls contain argue that the law of people will not publish the world state with refer to the moral cosmopolitan Rawls pointed that if liberal people want that all the societies must be liberal which led to the fact that other people who dislike to be liberal will if there are such there will reject the respect of liberal people, this will lead to have great bitterness and resentment. There are many reasons for Rawls rejection to be cosmopolitan and one of these reasons is that in the global level, Rawls in main norm of legitimacy explain the global original position with people instead of the individual. A global original position will choose the principle for institution of the global basic institution and than these institutions will meet the main norms of legitimacy, and this leads to all individual to accept by coerced the global institution. Form this Rawls leave the cosmopolitan origin position and move way (2). Conclusion This essay was arguer that for Rawls it is good to be cosmopolitan, and in the first part of this essay was about the justice as fairness and the tow main principle which are the first one is the liberal principle and the second is the different principle and than this essay moved to arguer the Rawls cosmopolitan theory and the rejection for Rawls to be cosmopolitan and the reasons for this rejection is that Rawls see it very difficult to be cosmopolitan or globe government and this is because the different believes or different religious also it is difficult for the two principle to be used in all around the world. Bibliography Rawls, J. (1999) (eds.) A Theory of Justice. Oxford University Press (2) wenar.info/media/WhyRawlsIsNotACosmopolitanEgalitarian.pdf by HH Haidar, 7th-9th April 2009). www.psa.ac.uk/2009/pps/Hadji%20Haidar.pdf originally published by Thomas W. pogge, translated by Michelle kosch, John Rawls - His life and the theory of justice, 2007, oxford university press Wolff, R. P. (1977). Understanding Rawls: A Reconstruction and Critique of a Theory of Justice. Princeton University Press. Kant, I. (1991) Kant's Political Writings, translated by H.B. Nisbet and edited by Hans Reiss. Cambridge University Press search.barnesandnoble.com/Justice-without-Borders/.../9780521542326 - Rawls, J. (1999) (eds.) A Theory of Justice. Oxford University Press Read More