Compare John Rawl's Deontological Approach To Social Justice

Although both John Rawls and Martha Nussbaum are considered respected philosophers, their approaches to the theory of social justice differ immensely. In this paper, I will demonstrate the flaws and strong points of their approaches to social justice and determine which is more persuasive. More specifically, I will analyze Rawls’s social contract type approach to Nussbaum’s proposed “Capabilities Approach” and directly apply them to the issue of people with disabilities. Lastly, I intend to present a personal opinion on these two theories of social justice based on my ethical framework. John Rawls theory of social justice developed over time with the publishing of various books he wrote, such as A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism. In A Theory of Justice, he determines the “Circumstances of Justice.” These circumstances assume justice applies to a “definite geographical territory and that the subjects of justice are “roughly similar in …show more content…
Both John Rawls and Martha Nussbaum have developed powerful arguments and social justice theories. If we lived in an ideal world with ideal citizens, then I would effortlessly agree with John Rawls. But the world we exist in is plagued with injustice. For this reason, I believe Nussbaum’s approach is significantly more efficient and beneficial to people of the entire world. Personally, the ethical framework I have built relies on a deontological approach. My morality is based on a duty towards God and his will. Although my analysis of God’s will has detected that he has in fact created everyone equally, it is obvious everyone is not treated equally. Undoubtedly, Nussbaum does not associate her theory with religion or God’s will in mind, but it does not oppose it either. The Capabilities Approach is the most inclusive of all people and does not treat people as means to ends. My judgment determines Nussbaum offers a more logical and persuasive social justice