Acacia Frempong-Manso
400013992
Philos 3N03
November 30th 2017
G.A Cohen’s criticisms of Rawls G.A. Cohen is best recognized in modern political philosophy for making the claim that the principles of justice are an essential reason behind the justification of an action-guiding principle, however, they are inappropriate to the conduct political practice. In Cohen's book, Rescuing Justice and Equality, he makes two criticisms of John Rawls. The first objection is that Rawl's is unable to limit the range of distributive justice solely to the doctrine of institutions. The second objection is that Rawl's wrongly pairs justice with practice leading to political principles. The purpose of this essay is to examine in further detail G.A. Cohen …show more content…
The theory of justice purposed by Rawls may be mainly egalitarian, however, it allows for inequalities which he views as essential to promote the advancement of economically productive capabilities. These purposed inequalities are consistent with justice since they fulfill the difference principle, by maximally advancing the position of the worst off group within society (Rawls, 1971). These inequalities can only be essential and justified if the group of talented people are incapable of developing their skills without them. An example of this would be those people who experience stressful education need more expensive forms of leisure in order to be competent of completing such task. Cohen indicates that it's the talented group themselves that make these inequalities possible, therefore it is necessary to give them these incentives or they could protest to increase their economic productivity without them. However, if this is the case, in what sense do the talented members of a group within society individually assert these principles? Rawls makes the claim, that the inhabitants of a just society assert the difference principle and therefore any arguments are in favour of it (Rawls, 1971). If this is true then how can they consistently make their work rate conditional upon obtaining greater compensations? The citizens who think the injustice of additional inequalities reasonably would not choose to make them necessary by requiring
400013992
Philos 3N03
November 30th 2017
G.A Cohen’s criticisms of Rawls G.A. Cohen is best recognized in modern political philosophy for making the claim that the principles of justice are an essential reason behind the justification of an action-guiding principle, however, they are inappropriate to the conduct political practice. In Cohen's book, Rescuing Justice and Equality, he makes two criticisms of John Rawls. The first objection is that Rawl's is unable to limit the range of distributive justice solely to the doctrine of institutions. The second objection is that Rawl's wrongly pairs justice with practice leading to political principles. The purpose of this essay is to examine in further detail G.A. Cohen …show more content…
The theory of justice purposed by Rawls may be mainly egalitarian, however, it allows for inequalities which he views as essential to promote the advancement of economically productive capabilities. These purposed inequalities are consistent with justice since they fulfill the difference principle, by maximally advancing the position of the worst off group within society (Rawls, 1971). These inequalities can only be essential and justified if the group of talented people are incapable of developing their skills without them. An example of this would be those people who experience stressful education need more expensive forms of leisure in order to be competent of completing such task. Cohen indicates that it's the talented group themselves that make these inequalities possible, therefore it is necessary to give them these incentives or they could protest to increase their economic productivity without them. However, if this is the case, in what sense do the talented members of a group within society individually assert these principles? Rawls makes the claim, that the inhabitants of a just society assert the difference principle and therefore any arguments are in favour of it (Rawls, 1971). If this is true then how can they consistently make their work rate conditional upon obtaining greater compensations? The citizens who think the injustice of additional inequalities reasonably would not choose to make them necessary by requiring