John Rawl's Principle Of Justice, And Social Contract Theory

834 Words 4 Pages
In order to judge a situation using Social Contract theory, we have to understand a few principles behind the theory first. These include the Social Contract, John Rawl 's Principle of Justice, and the Difference Principle. Using these three ideas, we can determine what constitutes a community of people, what makes a moral rule correct, and which correct moral rules would be accepted by a community of people.

The Social Contract is this idea that when people come together to form a community, moral rules must be agreed upon that benefit everyone in the community. Not only that, but the Social Contract needs some kind of established governing body to enforce the agreed upon rules. While this is only a metaphorical contract that is formed, the
…show more content…
By creating an advantage for oneself, the disadvantage for other people comes back as a disadvantage to that person too, since everyone is in the same situation. John Rawl 's Principle of Justice is the two part principle in Socail Contract Theory that expands the definition of the Social Contract such that it does not focus on moral rules as much as it focuses on rights and liberties. This clause of the Principle of Justice states that everyone in the community may make claims to certain rights as long as everyone may have the same claim to these rights. The second part of the principle, was added to address how social and economic inequalities may be morally acceptable. Inequalities may be justified if the following two conditions are satisfied: the first is every member of the community must have the same chance at improving his or her economic or social position. Meaning any two people of the same background, the same intelligence level, and same …show more content…
Again, the involved parties are the Secret Service, Albert Gonzalez, the people of the United States, and the victims of Albert Gonzalez 's credit card theft. These people make up the community in this case. Since the moral issue is whether or not the Secret Service was morally sound in hiring Gonzalez knowing he is capable of cyber crime, we have to examine what rights are involved and if anyone 's rights were violated. One deduction might be that because Gonzalez’s actions violated the people’s right to a personal identity, therefore the Secret Service’s action of hiring Gonzalez is immoral. It is worth noting that Social Contract Theory is not a consequentialist theory: meaning the outcomes of an action do not affect the judgment of a moral rule. To truly use Social Contract Theory to evaluate this case, we have to disregard the outcomes of an action. The Secret Service was fully aware that Gonzalez might betray them eventually, like the head of the Criminal Investigative Division at the Secret Service said, “It’s unfortunate. We try to take measures. But it does happen” (Verini). The people of the United States have a right to privacy and in order to enforce this right, organizations like the Secret Service must have the right to hire the right people to do the job. This right would be accepted by a

Related Documents