I will be outlining three ‘challenges from the right’ aimed at Rawls’ theory of justice.
John Rawls was an influential political philosopher during the late twentieth century, this was largely due to his work, ‘A Theory of Justice’ which was published in 1971. He answers a very old Platonic question: what is justice? Rawls saw justice as a virtue of the state. He was of the opinion that it is not the duty of the state to make people virtuous. He believed that people should be allowed to choose their own conception of the good, the state should not interfere in any way as that would result in infringing on people’s rights to freedom and equality. Rawls tries to combine two key political values in his theory: freedom and equality. He believed …show more content…
Practically, it only makes sense that hard work is incentivised. Human beings are by nature selfish and therefore incentives are needed for people to work hard in order to contribute to the market economy. If we were to follow Rawls theory and not have any incentives, the market economy would fall apart. No one would be motivated to work hard, in essence we would be encouraging laziness. This would result in a poor society where people only work hard enough in order to sustain themselves. This was how people lived hundreds of years ago, perhaps Rawls theory would have found a home then, but not in present society. Rawls lack of distinction between involuntary circumstances and voluntary choice is a problem. Rawls has essentially given us a theory that concludes that nothing is up to us. Clearly that is not true. We have free will and are able to choose whether we will rise above our unfortunate social background/make use of the advantages we’re born into or remain poor/not make use of the advantages we’re born …show more content…
Rawls emphasises freedom and equality in his theory. The fair equality of opportunity principle ensures equality but could possibly hinder freedom. In order for the fair equality of opportunity principle to be enforced, the state would have to interfere in the role of the family. True fairness would require that rules be put in place with regard to what is expected of parents in raising their children. For example, what they must feed them, how many hours a day they should spend with them etcetera. This would ensure that all children come from equal social circumstances. That would negatively be influencing our right to freedom with regard to how parents choose to raise their children. There is the possibility of government looking at genetic engineering as a way to ensure that people are on equal footing with regard to natural talents. Both genetic engineering as well as the interference of government in the role of the family negatively influences our right to freedom which is ironic because freedom is one of Rawls’s core principles in his theory of
John Rawls was an influential political philosopher during the late twentieth century, this was largely due to his work, ‘A Theory of Justice’ which was published in 1971. He answers a very old Platonic question: what is justice? Rawls saw justice as a virtue of the state. He was of the opinion that it is not the duty of the state to make people virtuous. He believed that people should be allowed to choose their own conception of the good, the state should not interfere in any way as that would result in infringing on people’s rights to freedom and equality. Rawls tries to combine two key political values in his theory: freedom and equality. He believed …show more content…
Practically, it only makes sense that hard work is incentivised. Human beings are by nature selfish and therefore incentives are needed for people to work hard in order to contribute to the market economy. If we were to follow Rawls theory and not have any incentives, the market economy would fall apart. No one would be motivated to work hard, in essence we would be encouraging laziness. This would result in a poor society where people only work hard enough in order to sustain themselves. This was how people lived hundreds of years ago, perhaps Rawls theory would have found a home then, but not in present society. Rawls lack of distinction between involuntary circumstances and voluntary choice is a problem. Rawls has essentially given us a theory that concludes that nothing is up to us. Clearly that is not true. We have free will and are able to choose whether we will rise above our unfortunate social background/make use of the advantages we’re born into or remain poor/not make use of the advantages we’re born …show more content…
Rawls emphasises freedom and equality in his theory. The fair equality of opportunity principle ensures equality but could possibly hinder freedom. In order for the fair equality of opportunity principle to be enforced, the state would have to interfere in the role of the family. True fairness would require that rules be put in place with regard to what is expected of parents in raising their children. For example, what they must feed them, how many hours a day they should spend with them etcetera. This would ensure that all children come from equal social circumstances. That would negatively be influencing our right to freedom with regard to how parents choose to raise their children. There is the possibility of government looking at genetic engineering as a way to ensure that people are on equal footing with regard to natural talents. Both genetic engineering as well as the interference of government in the role of the family negatively influences our right to freedom which is ironic because freedom is one of Rawls’s core principles in his theory of