In developing his theory of justice, Rawls is primarily concerned with the basic structure of society, not the personal conduct of individuals (Kymlicka 2002: 10). His theory is constructed with a particular conception of society in mind, namely, that of the modern nation-state (Parfit 2011: 346), and furthermore, his theory is focused on justice within such a society, not on interactions between different societies (Singer 1993: 253). In formulating his theory, Rawls also stipulates some circumstances that need to be applied to society and its members when conceiving his principles of justice. He sees them as the necessary conditions under which a cooperative society is possible. These are; the condition of moderate scarcity — in terms of
…show more content…
The first being the principle of liberty, which states that, each person possesses an equal right to basic liberties in keeping with similar liberties for others. Here he has in mind such things as; liberty of conscience, freedom to hold property, freedom from arbitrary arrest, and so on (Rawls 1971: 61). The second principle is concerned with the distribution of goods, and states that, social and economic inequalities are only permitted so long as they are expected to be to everyone 's advantage and attached to social positions open to all (Rawls 1971: 60). For Rawls, the principle of liberty is the assertion that each person possesses inviolable rights founded on justice, that cannot be overridden by political bargaining or for the calculus of social interests (Rawls 1971: 3-4, 61). This stands in contrast to the utilitarian account which, in principle, permits the loss of such rights, and the unequal distribution of goods that do not benefit all, if it results in some other greater good (Kymlicka 2002: 42). Rawls saw this as a great problem for the theory, and posited that it could even result in gross injustices like slavery, if it meant an increase in overall happiness (Greene 2013: 205). By implementing the original position, with the condition that parties come to their agreements whilst concerned with their …show more content…
Although in principle something like slavery could be permitted, in the real world, unless our nature were radically different, “there are no goods to be extracted from people that are so good as to outweigh the horrors of oppression.” (Greene 2013: 278). Nevertheless, the notion of basic rights only makes sense if it produces more good. Utilitarianism might prescribe rules assigning particular rights to individuals, but would do so only after considering the consequences of having and not having such things (Kymlicka 2002: 28). Additionally, it could permit restricting, or removing, some of the rights held by individuals, for the greater good. Greene (2013: 278-279) gives an example of HIV positive individuals, who, have some of their freedoms restricted by laws preventing them from having unprotected sex without informing their partners of their situation. Although they are typically a minority, and may even enjoy, on average, less happiness than others due to illness, the utilitarian holds that when weighing potential outcomes, we are right to place restrictions on their freedom, for the greater good it
The first being the principle of liberty, which states that, each person possesses an equal right to basic liberties in keeping with similar liberties for others. Here he has in mind such things as; liberty of conscience, freedom to hold property, freedom from arbitrary arrest, and so on (Rawls 1971: 61). The second principle is concerned with the distribution of goods, and states that, social and economic inequalities are only permitted so long as they are expected to be to everyone 's advantage and attached to social positions open to all (Rawls 1971: 60). For Rawls, the principle of liberty is the assertion that each person possesses inviolable rights founded on justice, that cannot be overridden by political bargaining or for the calculus of social interests (Rawls 1971: 3-4, 61). This stands in contrast to the utilitarian account which, in principle, permits the loss of such rights, and the unequal distribution of goods that do not benefit all, if it results in some other greater good (Kymlicka 2002: 42). Rawls saw this as a great problem for the theory, and posited that it could even result in gross injustices like slavery, if it meant an increase in overall happiness (Greene 2013: 205). By implementing the original position, with the condition that parties come to their agreements whilst concerned with their …show more content…
Although in principle something like slavery could be permitted, in the real world, unless our nature were radically different, “there are no goods to be extracted from people that are so good as to outweigh the horrors of oppression.” (Greene 2013: 278). Nevertheless, the notion of basic rights only makes sense if it produces more good. Utilitarianism might prescribe rules assigning particular rights to individuals, but would do so only after considering the consequences of having and not having such things (Kymlicka 2002: 28). Additionally, it could permit restricting, or removing, some of the rights held by individuals, for the greater good. Greene (2013: 278-279) gives an example of HIV positive individuals, who, have some of their freedoms restricted by laws preventing them from having unprotected sex without informing their partners of their situation. Although they are typically a minority, and may even enjoy, on average, less happiness than others due to illness, the utilitarian holds that when weighing potential outcomes, we are right to place restrictions on their freedom, for the greater good it