Three Challenges From The Right And John Rawls Theory Of Justice

Decent Essays
I will be outlining three ‘challenges from the right’ aimed at Rawls’ theory of justice and discussing whether they succeed or not. Those from the ‘right’ are advocates of ensuring that freedom and liberty are maximized in society. Rawls’s theory of justice has been met by many challenges, especially from the philosopher Nozick. A large portion of Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, The State and Utopia is dedicated to refuting John Rawls’s theories pertaining to justice. Rawls was of the opinion that economic inequalities should only be permitted if they benefit the least advantaged members of society; this has come to be known as the difference principle. Nozick was of the opinion that the state didn’t have any business permitting economic inequalities …show more content…
He calls these goods ‘primary’ goods. According to Rawls, when we enter the original position, we need to decide how to choose how these goods are to be distributed. Rawls answers this question with principles of justice. Rawls’s first principle of justice is the principle of liberty. The principle of liberty holds that every free and equal person in society has political and civil liberties. Rawls second principle of justice is the principle of equality. The principle of equality comprises of two principles. Firstly, the fair equality of opportunity principle which holds that there must not just be mere formal equality of opportunity but it must actually be practised, people must actually have a fair chance. ‘Careers open to talents’ are insufficient. Public offices and social positions must be open in the formal sense and all should have a fair chance to attain them. People with the same talents and abilities should have the same prospects of success, regardless of their social class of origin. The second principle is the difference principle. According to this principle inequalities in social and economic goods are only acceptable if they promote the welfare of the least advantaged members of society. Rawls states that the less fortunate members of society will do better if some inequality is allowed. The least advantaged members of society will be better off in absolute terms as opposed to been in a society …show more content…
Nozick rightly states that each person’s talents and abilities belong to them. Therefore, they have a right to keep whatever these talents and abilities gain for themselves. To forcibly redistribute what they earn, as Rawls’s theory suggests, is disrespecting their autonomy and ultimately their right to freedom and liberty. John Rawls’ theory of distributive justice is based on the idea that society is a system of cooperation for mutual advantage between individuals. However, taking wealth away from people only benefits the less fortunate. As both philosophers point out, justice is the most important political value and applies to the basic institutions of society such as institutions that regulate the market, property, family, freedom, and so on. If society is a matter of cooperation between equals for mutual advantage, the conditions for this cooperation need to be defended and any inequalities in social positions must be

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    It is that “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and attached to positions and office open to all” (Rawls 53). This holds the concept that the poorest in the society will have a greater benefit to provide them the minimal things that satisfy a comfortable living. Although Rawls believes that not taking the natural lottery into consideration would be ideal, his remark on rationality of the original position takes into consideration that such a system can never be implemented in a society where people can work to get to a better social situation. This is why those in the deem the “original position (to be) purely hypothetical” because the initial principles cannot be tested (Rawls 104). The reasoning behind these initial principles is intuition and Rawls states that intuition is utilized when “there exist(s) no higher-order constructive criteria for determining the proper emphasis for the competing principles of justice” (Rawls 30).…

    • 1472 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He argues that a person's liberty is what is most important and should be a priority. The second principle is called the “Difference Principle” which requires social and economic inequalities to be modified so that they can produce an outcome that is fair and equal to all. Rawls’ notion of justice as fairness demands that distribution of the goods of society should be consciously structured in order to provide a fair distribution. His last argument ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in society, this is called the social contract theory. The “original position” is the main component on Rawls’ social contract account of justice, it allows us to figure out what principle of justice people in society would agree to if we lived in a society of total freedom.…

    • 715 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, free markets and gender equality are all tenets of the liberal ideology. Complete freedom from the thoughts or ideas of others imposing their will upon you. You are the only one that can answer for yourself and what is best for you. You are responsible to only yourself as long as you do not interfere with others. We should “maximize welfare, or (as the utilitarians put it) seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” (Sandel pg.…

    • 1287 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Rawls states, “inequalities as defined by the institutional structure…are arbitrary unless it is reasonable to expect that they will work out to everyone’s advantage” (225). The first part of this principle specifies that social and economic inequalities, if they are to exist, are to benefit the least-advantaged members of society, which is the difference principle. An example that was provided in class was that you are allowed to make as much money as you want as long as you are helping benefit the least advantaged because it is only a just society if people are not without a home and basic rights. This principle rests heavily on social institutions being organized so that inequalities of wealth will specifically be the greatest advantage to those worse off. A specific example that further supports Rawls theory of justice would be Whole Foods Market; a multimillion-dollar company that helps to benefit the least advantaged.…

    • 1370 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Using the first principle of justice, the laws that are based off the “general will” will always promote the security and freedom of individuals intact. Due to the emphasis on promoting freedom and equality, the ideal society would fall under Rawls’ determination of fairness under the first principle of justice. Rawls puts an emphasis on equal liberties and Rousseau’s society is focused on equality of all individuals. In that society, individuals have social liberties similar to those Rawls emphasizes. “The social compact creates an equality among the citizens so that they all commit to the same conditions and should all have the same rights.” (Rousseau 108).…

    • 1251 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Freedom is a concept that cannot be mutually defined by all. This is because of the various aspects that impact one perception on what freedom is and how it should be achieved. Through the text Introduction to Social and Political Society by Omid Payrow Shabani and Monique Deveaux, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill provide their unique philosophies on the concept on freedom and liberty. Kant stands behind positive liberty and advocates that the government can act as an institutionalized version of the best parts of ourselves meaning that freedom does not mean an absence of government but one that helps everyone become more reasonable. Mill, on the other hand, supports negative freedom and believes that the state should only intervene when…

    • 1090 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In this scenario, institutions that are supposed to promote without discrimination, a social contract that supports social cooperation based on equal assignments of right, duties and liberties are choosing to promote a philosophy that above all, works to the benefit of the majority. In doing so, they are making a conscious choice to increase the advantages for wealthier citizens which impact negatively on the opportunities, choices and rights of citizens living in hardship. These hardships ultimately result in a lack of liberty, which should be the fundamental right of every citizen and responsibility of any institution. Hence, even if the Utilitarian theory is conceived as generally bringing greater wellbeing , it is not a fair system. It is from this lack of fairness and its consequences on lack of opportunities and rights that Rawls seeks to identify an alternative theory, one that acknowledges the principle of difference, and ensures a fair distribution of rights and duties that would compensate the weakest members of society from hardships beyond their control and therefore bring them to an equal status with other…

    • 988 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In the book “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls, Rawls uses the idea of a social contract in which a group of free, rational, and self-interested people would be in, and in effect create a society that distributes goods. Rawls primarily focuses on the idea that goods should be distributed in a way so that goods can benefit the least advantaged people in a society. This focus leads to many questions regarding distributive justice, but the primary question of this paper is: should political power aim to benefit society as a whole, even if this sometimes harms or disadvantages individuals? Through an analysis of principles and ideas by Rawls in his book, and insight on parental influence in the schooling system of modern-day America, this paper…

    • 1024 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He also reckons we need freedom to create an enlightened society and achieve happiness. However, how difficult is it to uphold the moral law? To answer this question from a Kantian point of view, any action performed must be done from a duty to the highest moral law in order to have any moral worth. What determines whether an action has moral worth or not is the maxim. Freedom ends when your choices begin to affect other people and morality is universal.…

    • 1793 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Human Rights Are Universal

    • 1903 Words
    • 8 Pages

    A human right is a claim that demands respect; dominates; gives structure to systems; is objectively valid; instils duties; and gives humans power to certain freedoms. The term fundamental connotes to legal rights being necessary to form the core root of society. Universal accounts for all people, cultures, religions and countries, where there is an absence of ethnocentrism and discrimination. These three terms put together is showing that human rights dominate over other rights when they can be applied on any human being regardless of disabilities, status or wealth. These rights form the basis through which humans can lead a minimally good life only if applied.…

    • 1903 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays