“The theory of Justice” has become one of the most notable works by the American philosopher John Rawls. The popularity of Rawls works in western political philosophy is enormous. It was even said that either everyone read the “Theory of Justice” or they pretended that they have read it. Rawls book was created in 1971. It gained immediate recognition and fame. It can even be said that his book became the philosophy of justice. Most importantly is that Rawls managed to combine and interpret the strengths and concepts of liberalism to the new generation that was exhausted of the ethics of utilitarianism.
Justice is the main virtue of all social institutions, which in turn makes up our whole system of thought. I think that social institutions …show more content…
Therefore, morality which is the principles that concern the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior are affected by the social institutions. In other words, morality does not affect justice but rather justice affects our morality. The question that arises here is if we have to consider morality when distributing justice in our society. Various philosophers like Nozick and Sidgwick claim that theories of Justice should be assembled from the principles of desert. This principle states that people ought to get what they deserve. People should be rewarded in proportion to their efforts and the risk they are willing to take in order to finish their job. In other words, principles of desert focus on how we as human beings, distinguish ourselves. Rawls brings up the topic of desert and rejects the principles of desert by calling it: “one of the fixed points of our considered judgements that no one deserves his place in the distribution of natural endowments, any more than one deserves one’s initial starting place …show more content…
Rawls largely stresses his claim when he argues moral desert. This view has been discussed by many philosophers and still remains as a relevant topic in philosophy. One’s blame, reward or punishment can depend on the quality of the outcome, therefore we are responsible for how we want that outcome to turn out. Skeptics of Rawls Difference principle state that some people deserve more because of their scarce talents and the amount of effort they put in their work. Rawls argues back by stating that under the Difference Principle the more talented people will already be rewarded and shouldn’t be rewarded twice as it will be unjust. Furthermore, the notion of desert does not apply to those who were already gifted by nature, as for the effort people contribute, Rawls claims: “the effort a person is willing to make is influenced by his natural abilities and skills and the alternatives open to him” hence, “the idea of rewarding desert is impracticable”. (“Theory of Justice”,
Justice is the main virtue of all social institutions, which in turn makes up our whole system of thought. I think that social institutions …show more content…
Therefore, morality which is the principles that concern the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior are affected by the social institutions. In other words, morality does not affect justice but rather justice affects our morality. The question that arises here is if we have to consider morality when distributing justice in our society. Various philosophers like Nozick and Sidgwick claim that theories of Justice should be assembled from the principles of desert. This principle states that people ought to get what they deserve. People should be rewarded in proportion to their efforts and the risk they are willing to take in order to finish their job. In other words, principles of desert focus on how we as human beings, distinguish ourselves. Rawls brings up the topic of desert and rejects the principles of desert by calling it: “one of the fixed points of our considered judgements that no one deserves his place in the distribution of natural endowments, any more than one deserves one’s initial starting place …show more content…
Rawls largely stresses his claim when he argues moral desert. This view has been discussed by many philosophers and still remains as a relevant topic in philosophy. One’s blame, reward or punishment can depend on the quality of the outcome, therefore we are responsible for how we want that outcome to turn out. Skeptics of Rawls Difference principle state that some people deserve more because of their scarce talents and the amount of effort they put in their work. Rawls argues back by stating that under the Difference Principle the more talented people will already be rewarded and shouldn’t be rewarded twice as it will be unjust. Furthermore, the notion of desert does not apply to those who were already gifted by nature, as for the effort people contribute, Rawls claims: “the effort a person is willing to make is influenced by his natural abilities and skills and the alternatives open to him” hence, “the idea of rewarding desert is impracticable”. (“Theory of Justice”,