New Question 1: Rawls and Feminism Should we be caring for the ones who are most venerable or the poor? Philosopher John Rawls, believes that we should be thinking about the poor first before we make any policies, he attempts to account for social justice. “The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.” Feminisms believe that we should be attending to those who are most vulnerable, which is accounting for ethics of care also known as a moral theory. Feminist promote care-givers in a society. John Rawls believes that people are rational mutual disinterested.
…show more content…
Some of the differences being their thoughts of fairness. Rawls thinks of fairness as everyone is equal to one another, whereas feminist see it as sometimes fair must be unfair. Meaning that in some instances someone will be in more need than the other person. For example, if you are at a doctor’s office for a mild cold, and someone comes in with fifty-fifty chance of survival, they are going to choose to attend to the person who needs more care. It is unfair to the person that need the care as well. Another difference that Rawls had from feminism is the thought of people being rational mutual disinterested people, that we are selfish and that we only think about our own goals and projects. Feminist believe that we need to be dependent on one another; care for and be cared for. That we are depends on healthy relationships and not only our self-interest. Last difference was Rawls theory of the veil of ignorance. Which is beings who pretend they don’t know about their race, class, gender, etc. Feminist say we are born as embodied people. Along with their differences they also have similarity’s in their philosophy’s where they agree to an extent. They both consider the most venerable first. Rawls considers the lower class; poor, and feminism considers the people who need care. Another similarity is they are both trying to build a healthy society. Rawls tries to build a healthy society by making certain that everyone is equal, and feminist assured a healthy society by having everyone care for one another. Lastly the both have a social contract. Agreeing to the care and wellbeing of the most
Some of the differences being their thoughts of fairness. Rawls thinks of fairness as everyone is equal to one another, whereas feminist see it as sometimes fair must be unfair. Meaning that in some instances someone will be in more need than the other person. For example, if you are at a doctor’s office for a mild cold, and someone comes in with fifty-fifty chance of survival, they are going to choose to attend to the person who needs more care. It is unfair to the person that need the care as well. Another difference that Rawls had from feminism is the thought of people being rational mutual disinterested people, that we are selfish and that we only think about our own goals and projects. Feminist believe that we need to be dependent on one another; care for and be cared for. That we are depends on healthy relationships and not only our self-interest. Last difference was Rawls theory of the veil of ignorance. Which is beings who pretend they don’t know about their race, class, gender, etc. Feminist say we are born as embodied people. Along with their differences they also have similarity’s in their philosophy’s where they agree to an extent. They both consider the most venerable first. Rawls considers the lower class; poor, and feminism considers the people who need care. Another similarity is they are both trying to build a healthy society. Rawls tries to build a healthy society by making certain that everyone is equal, and feminist assured a healthy society by having everyone care for one another. Lastly the both have a social contract. Agreeing to the care and wellbeing of the most