Australian Global Society: Rawls Central Argument for Justice as Fairness - Term Paper Example

Running Header: Australian Global Society: Rawl’s Central Argument for Justice as Fairness Rawl’s Central Argument for Justice as Fairness Name & Id Course Name & Code Instructor’s Name 17th February 2010 John Rawls seeks to explain that justice can only be served through fairness. Rawls tries to explain the concept of justice through what he calls the ‘principles of justice’. He argues that all decisions in the society are supposed to be made through a social contract. Through these, Rawls claims all the decisions made would be fair to all. The use of these principles of justice would be according to a device he calls the ‘original position’. The original position explains that the citizens share of the basic needs in the society. These also include the economic and social needs among the people in the state. According to the social contract, citizens form units that are called state of civil society (Rawls, 1971). Through the civil society, the government has less power and bears the responsibility to protect the citizens and also their property. The people select their representatives who then make laws that will govern the society. Rawls argues that the representatives will select principles of justice that citizens are guaranteed all basic rights and liberties, the social and economic inequalities must be addressed to fit the benefit of the less privileged members of the society. This is under the assumption that under the veil of ignorance, the original position, the risk associated with the people will be minimal. John Rawls tried to explain all these through his principles: the liberty principle and the difference principle (Rawls, 1971). These two principles try to explain the discharge of duties by the authorities concerned and also the distribution of the social and economic rights equally among all citizens.  Rawls argues that if any person is to get a favour, then it has to be the less privileged person. This will justice as it helps the worse off members of the society to get opportunity for uplifting his social status (Rawls, 1958). In addition, Rawls claims that all every member of the society has an equal chance to get an equal share of the wealth of the natural society. This means that the better of in the society people has an equal chance of getting the same share as that member of the society with that person who is not equally wealthy (Nagel, 1973).  This means that all members of the society are treated with the same dignity and respect. This means that justice will be served to everyone.   Ignorance of these principle means that justice is not fair to all. These two principles have its own explanations in the context of the fairness. The liberty principle is one of Rawls principles that try to explain justice is fairness. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others (Rawls, 1971).   The basic liberties include political association, freedom of interaction, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of owning property and also freedom from unlawful arrest. There are some principles that are not stated like the principle to own some kind of property like production rights and the contractual rights (Nagel, 1973). This principle deals mainly about self-expression and direction in all the matters that are of interest in the day-to-day activities of life. This principle explains that human beings should be able to do what they want and the limiting principle should be the principle of harming others. This means that the meaning of happiness may conflict with the meaning of happiness by the other person. This therefore brings the debate as to what the boundaries of liberty principles belong (Rawls, 1971). This is in recognition of the fact that what makes you happy may not make the other happy thereby meaning that you are infringing his right. The limiting factors to the principles of liberty include causing harm to yourself or others, offending persons and also moral implications. That therefore means a person is at liberty to do what he wants to do as long as he does not offend the others. However, the greatest challenge of this principle is the different levels of sensitivity of different people. The government therefore does not have the degree of sensitivity in which people should not exceed. It therefore does not have the legal guidelines to enforce the law. The only way to enforce these regulations is mutually to agree on the limits, which should not be exceeded (Rawls, 1971); the enforcement of this law will always restrict ones private life or the whole public. The more these laws are enforced, the more the chances of the pursuit of happiness are squashed. This principle of self-direction is always contentious as the government must always protect those who feel aggrieved and also ensure they allow the other person exercises what he feels brings him happiness(Nagel, 1973). The responsibility of the liberty rights lies in the hands of the citizens themselves who must tolerate each other as long as the others do not harm them. The social and economic inequalities are to addressed such that; they are to be the greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of the society (difference principle) and also offices and positions must be equal to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity (Rawls, 1971). They explain that for justice to prevail, there first have to be fair and equal chance for everyone so that the difference principle prevails. The difference position allows inequality if it is biased towards the less advantaged members of the society. Rawls argues that each member of the society has an equal claim to the society’s goods and natural characteristics should not stop effect this argument (Okin, 1999). Therefore, the rights of any person before considering other characteristics must be equal especially in material things. This means that the less advantaged members of the society are protected from being worse off than they already are currently. This argument seeks to explain that naturally barn factors should not determine our chances in life as to what we shall become in future. Therefore, a child born in a poor family should have the equal chances as a child born in a wealthy family. This argument does not also believe in inborn gifts and talents and any services that we could get from them (Nagel, 1973). This means that they have to a criterion in place that alienates and puts all people in a level ground.          Rawls also advocates that not all people should be in offices or higher position in order of merit or influence. This gives everyone a reasonable chance to be able get to an office. Rawls also argues that the difference principle minimizes the risk associated in using the original position (Nagel, 1973). This is after consideration of the worst-case scenario and the recognition of the veil of ignorance. This means that the best always happens to the least advantaged people in the society.  If the difference principle is used then one person is disadvantaged because there will always be unequal distribution (Rawls, 1958). The large social and economic societies follow the difference principle; tend not to follow political settings as well as individual efforts. This means that the opportunity for a fair, equal and just society is not achieved and hence the society is still unequal. The principle however asks us to divorce ourselves from the core values that describe the natural and normal setting of the society (Rawls, 1971). By making a decision to be an individual will always make it unfair to another individual. The difference principle has been called impartial because it cannot be made any fair without making it less fair to another person.  However the theory of justice as fairness cannot be agreed upon if they were to the benefit of the least advantage as it has major misdoings. First Rawls himself conceded the fact that the disadvantaged person may suffer much more disadvantages if there was redistribution and there were large number of people to be served (Nagel, 1973). The theory also does not explain the injustices of the family in the society. It is found that the theory is more general in the society. The theory of justice as fairness therefore cannot be agreed upon as practical and can only be termed as an egalitarian theory of moral conduct, which applies to all the obligations, which individuals have towards each other.   REFERENCES Nagel, T. (1973). Rawls on Justice. Philosophical Review, 82(2), pp. 220-234.  Okin, S. (1999). Justice, gender and the family. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rawls, J. (1958). Justice as Fairness. Philosophical Review, 67(2), pp. 164-194. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.  Read More