John Rawls has, in miscellaneous works and in his book A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, 1971) protected the perspective that “justice generally requires that basic social goods – liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect – be equally distributed, unless an unequal distribution is to everyone’s advantage.” If his allegation …show more content…
In the history of philosophy, utilitarianism approach protects the belief that the theory of justice is established on an assumption of ‘utility’ or increase of happiness. The sort of arguments that Rawls appeal in his book A Theory of Justice is an alternative to utilitarianism and he attempts to atonement the preponderance of utilitarianism approach in modern political philosophy. Rawl’s Theory of Justice calls attention to a universal moral and fundamental ideal theory of justice which could be applied by all societies. It seems that Rawls developed Theory at a time when nobody was talking about and when people were asking for maximizing the welfare of the society. His notion of justice was a more fundamental and basis theory to propose a solution for all political and economic …show more content…
In section II I will analyze the new horizons and perspectives on Rawl’s claim of the superiority of equality of opportunity over the difference principle. I believe that Rawl’s two principles of justice are acceptable, but that Rawl’s notion of ‘priority’ offers new perspectives to the academics. My aim will be to reconsider this argument in order to make Rawl’s claim more justifiable.
In section III I will challenge the consecutive argument:
“The basic structure is the primary subject of justice because its effects are so profound and present from the start.”
According to Rawls, basic structure is core for justice. It is necessary to question on his assert of such a claim. Why it is primary subject? Can it be its restricted subject?
In section IV I will investigate regarding Rawl’s egalitarianism. The paradox (es) rises around the question of applicability of Original Position and situations when the OP is activated: Nagel and Dworkin critique and attack Rawl’s original position and they provide us with important justifications against it. As we will see, both these philosophers’ arguments will prove to be significant for a rejection of Rawl’s proposal. Furthermore, there is the questionability of either justice as fairness is a moral comprehensive doctrine or not. What is it if it is not a moral comprehensive doctrine? How exactly should we understand