Rawls’ theory of justice
·
Veil of ignorance – When we isolate our
political, physical, social identity along with our advantages and
disadvantages we would choose an original position of equality. The principles
agreed to in such a situation would be just.
·
Rawls's idea of the social contract is a
hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality.
·
Rawls argue that in such situation
utilitarianism and libertarianism would be rejected because of risk of being in
oppressed class.
·
He gave two principles of justice that would emerge
in such a situation:-
o
Equal basic liberties for all citizens which
takes priority over considerations of social utility and the general welfare.
o
Difference Principle - Only those social and
economic inequalities will be permitted that work to the advantage of the least
well off members of society.
·
Can consent create an obligation on its own, or
is some element of benefit or reliance also required?
·
Actual contracts carry moral weight insofar as
they realize two ideals-autonomy and reciprocity.
·
Voluntary consent does not guarantee the
fairness of the agreement and is not sufficient for create a binding moral
claim.
·
An obligation to repay a benefit can arise
without consent is not always morally plausible.
·
Wherever there is an obligation, there need not been
an agreement. Eg – Tort law is not based on consent but on obligation to pay.
·
Contract based on consent are also not fair due
to disparity in party’s bargaining powers and knowledge.
·
Thus, in veil of ignorance when a contract is
reached it is just because it removes arbitrary contingencies that arise because
of party’s existing knowledge.
·
Rawls explain why people would not gamble while
forming social contract as in his opinion people will not gamble on choosing
principles which will govern their fundamental life prospects. Also, the veil
of ignorance would also ensure that they do not know they like to gamble.
·
The distribution of income and wealth that
results from a free market with formal equality of opportunity cannot be
considered just. The most obvious injustice of the libertarian system "is
that it permits distributive shares to be improperly influenced by these
factors so arbitrary from a moral point of view."
·
Rawls believes that the meritocratic conception
corrects for certain morally arbitrary advantages, but still falls short of
justice. "Even if it works to perfection in eliminating the influence of social
contingencies," the meritocratic system "still permits the
distribution of wealth and income to be determined by the natural distribution
of abilities and talents Rawls does not advocate for absolute equality
and using the difference principle creates exception for gifted individuals to
develop and exercise their talents, but with the understanding that the rewards
these talents reap in the market belong to the community as a whole.
·
Objection to Difference Principle:-
o
Incentives – Critics argue that if incentive is reduced
for talented individuals what is there to stop them from working altogether. Rawls
replies saying that differences in form of incentives are fine as long as these
individuals’ activities help the lower most section of society.
o
Effort – Critics argue that when Rawls rejects
meritocracy what about those who were meritorious due the amount of effort they
had put it in. Rawls replies
that even effort may be the product of a favourable upbringing. Even the
willingness to make an effort, to try, and so to be deserving in the ordinary
sense is itself dependent upon happy family and social circumstances
·
Rawls also rejects the moral desert. (Moral
desert is what a person deserves.)
·
Rawls makes an important but subtle
distinction-between moral desert and what he calls "entitlements to
legitimate expectations." The difference is this: Unlike a desert claim,
an entitlement can arise only once certain rules of the game are in place. It
can't tell us how to set up the rules in the first place.
·
Rawls argues that distributive justice is not
about rewarding virtue or moral desert. Instead, it's about meeting the
legitimate expectations that arise once the rules of the game are in place.
0 comments :
Post a Comment