Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
JOHN RAWLS: THEORY OF JUSTICE: (INTRODUCTION: (RAWL'S WORK: (1958:…
JOHN RAWLS: THEORY OF JUSTICE:
INTRODUCTION:
JUSTICE IS MOST IMP CONCERN OF POLITICAL THEORY FROM THE TIME OF PLATO
IN POLITICCAL PHILOSOPHY JUSTICE IS NOT JUST LIMITED TO LEGAL STATUS... BUT FOR ETHICAL DIMENSION ALSO
THE MOST IMP. IDEA OF JUSTICE IS DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
JOHN RAWLS CONSIDERED GREATEST PHILOSOPHER OF 20TH CENTURY
RAWLS POSITION IN CONTEMPARY POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IS PAR WITH PLATO
ALSO RAWLS HAS BEE GIVEN CREDIT OF REVIVAL OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
RAWL'S WORK:
1958: ARTICLE: JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
1971: BOOK: THEORY OF JUSTICE
1993: POLITICAL LIBERALSIM: RAWLS RESPONSE TO COMMUNITARIAN CRITIQUE
RAWLS : A POSITIVE OR SOCIAL LIBERAL
INFLUENCE ON RAWLS:
JOHN LOCKE:
RAWLS REVISE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
IMMANUEL KANT: RAWLS HELD THAT HUMAN DIGNITY HAS TO BE ONE OF FOUNDATIONAL VALUE OF THEORY OF JUSTICE
GANDHIAN ETHICS: RAWLS HELD JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
RAWLS THEORY JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
ACC. TO RAWLS NATURAL DISTRIBUTION IS NEITHER JUST , NOR UNJUST
THERE IS NO SCHEME OF INJUSTICE IN NATURE
IT IS THE SOCIETY WHICH MAKES JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE
SINCE JUSTICE IS OF HUMAN CREATION THAN A SYSTEM CAN BE CREATED WHICH IS JUST
JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS: TO ALL: TO THOSE WHO ARE AT ADVANTAGE OR AT DISADVANTAGE ALSO
CONTEXT OF RAWLS THEORY:CRITICISM OF UTILITRIAN CONCEPT OF JUSTICE
RAWLS HELD :
EACH PERSON POSSES INVIOLABILTY
MEANING DIGNITY OF A SINGLE PERSON CAN'T BE VOILATED
EVEN WELFARE OF WHOLE SOCIETY CAN'T OVERWRITE THE DIGNITY OF A PERSON EVEN FOR MAXIMIZING HAPPINESSTT
EACH PERSON IS A END IN ITSELF - NO ONE IS MEANS TO OTHER
UTILITARIAN THEORY OF JUSTICE:
DOMINANT THEORY OF JUSTICE IN MOST OF THE WESTERN COUNTRIES
SO RAWLS SOUGHT TO MAKE A THEORY WHICH IS ACCEPTABLE TO ALL SECTION OF SOCIETY
RAWLS DESCRIBE HIS THEORY AS DEONTOLOGICAL(NOT DEPENDENT ON CONSEQUENCES) JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS IS PRINCIPLE
CONCEPT OF RAWLS THEORY OF JUSTICE
ORIGNAL POSITION
ORIGNAL POSITION IS SIMILAR TO CONCEPT OF STATE OF NATURE
ORIGNAL POSITION IS SITUTAION BEFORE THE CONTRACT
FEATURES OF ORIGNAL POSITION
PERSONS HAVE COME TOGETHER TO ENTER INTO THE CONTRACT
RAWLS DOESN'T LOOK PERSON AS A HOBBESIAN MAN
BUT AS A KANTIAN MAN
PERSON HAS INHERIENT SENSE OF RIGHT & WRONG
PERSONS UNDERSTAND THAT COOPERATION IS BENEFIICAL
THEY ARE RATIONAL. AND HAVE RATIONAL PLAN FOR LIFE
PERSON ARE ASSEMBLED FOR DISTRIBUTION OF PRIMARY GOODS:
LIBERTY
RIGHTS
INCOME
WEALTH
DIGNITY
THESE PRIMARY GOODS ARE ESSENTAIL TO HAVE SECONDARY GOODS
LIKE SOMEONE WANTS TO BECOMA A DOCTOR IS A SECONDARY GOOD
VIEL OF IGNORANCE
IT IS THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
TO BRING PEOPLE FROM A SITUATION WHERE
THEY CAN LOOK THINGS FROM A COMPLETELY RATIONAL PRESPECTIVE
LIBERTY
MOST ADVANTAGEOUS WILL SRTIVE FOR IT
AFTER REMOVING VEIL OF IGNORANCE
LIBERTY HAPPENS TO BE AT LEAST ADVANTAGE THAN LIBERTY WILL LEAST WANTED
IN ORIGNAL POSITION MAN WAS BEHIND VIEL OF IGNORANCE
NOR THEY KNEW THAT KNID OF SOCIETY IS GOING TO EMERGE
PERSON DIDN'T KNEW PARTICULAR FACTS ABOUT THEMSELVES
PERSON DIDN'T KNEW WHAT QUALITIES ARE GOING TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS AND WHAT AT DISADVANTAGE
HOWEVER PERSON HAD SOME IDEA ABOUT ECONOMICS AND PSYCHOLOGGY
EQUALITY
LEAST ADVANTAGEGOUS WILL SRUVE FOR IT
AFTER REMOVING VEIL OF IGNORANCE EQUALITY HAPPENS TO BE AT MOST ADVANTAGE
THAN EQUALITY WILL BE LEAST REQUIRED
IN THIS CONDITION NOT ONLY ONE CAN BE CHOOSEN
SO SELECTION TO BE ON BASIS OF
MAXIM PRINCIPLE
(MIDDLE PATH)
WHAT SHOULD PRIORTY?
1ST : MAXIMUM LIBERTY
2ND: EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
3RD DIFFRENCE PRINCIPLE : HUMAN DIGNITY
DIGNITY :ONLY OPTION WHEN PERSON LACK ANY TALENT , THAN THAT PERSON SHOULD STRIVE FOR DIGNITY
ACC. TO RAWLS IF PERSON 1ST STRIVE FOR DIGNITY HE IS IRRATIONAL
SO DIGNITY CONCEPT IS LINKED WITH EQUALITY
FROEG: HUMAN RIGHTS (LIBERAL FROM CORE BUT PREAMBLE SHOULD TO PROVIDE EQUALITY)
ALSO IF ALL RIGHTS ARE EXHAUSTED EVEN HUMAN RIGHTS TO STAY
THIS ORDER IS CALLED
LEXICAL ORDER
THIS ORDER: CAN'T BE CHANGED
BASIS OF LEXICAL ORDER
RAWLS HELD THAT IF A PERSON IS RATIONAL
HE WOULD PREFER A SYSTEM THAT WILL GIVE MAX. OPPORTUNITY FOR HIS TALENT
ALSO RATIONAL PERSON WILL MINIMISE THE DISADVANTAGE
SO RATIONAL PERSON WILL CHOOSE THAT OUTCOME WHOSE WORST OUTCOME IS BETTER THAN WORST OUTCOME OF OTHER ALTERNATE
FOR EG: IF PERSON CHOSSES LIBERTY AND THAT HE IS LEAST ADVANTAGED.. THAN IN THIS WORST OUTCOME IS WORSE THAN OTHER OPTIONS.. SO THIS SHOULD NOT BE OPTION
SIMILARLY IF A PERSON CHOOSES EQUALITY BUT HE HAPPENS TO BE MOST ADVANTAGE.. IT IS ALSO A WORST OPTION.. AS HE WILL NOT BE IN A CONDITION TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS TALENTS
FOR EG: WORST FORM OF LIBERTY: MIGHT IS RIGHT: ANARCHY
WORST FROM OF EQUALITY: SLAVERY
REFLEXIVE EQUILIBRIUM
PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE : JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS REFLECTS REFLEXIVE EQUILIBRIUM HASN'T COME FROM A VACCUM BUT INHERITED IN OUR MIND
REFLEXIVE EQUILIBRIUM IS A PROCESS WHEN WE VERIFY OUR JUDGEMENT BY QUESTIONING OUR BELIEF
IT MEANS REVISING BEIEF , FOR JUDGEMENT
FOR EG: KILLING A INNOCENT IS WRONG: AND EVEN A CHILD IS MORE WRONG
NOW CONSIDER A PLANE CARRYING A CHILD IS SET TO CRASH INTO A BULDING
IN THIS CASE OPTION WILL BE TO BLOW THA PLANE . AS IN ANY CASE IF U DIDN'T BLOW THE PLANE CHILD WILL DIE ON COLLISION WITH BULDING ATLEAST LIVES OF PERSON IN THE BUILDING CAN BE SAVED
RAWLS CONCEPT OF JUSTICE:
JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
RAWLS HELD THAT
JUSTICE AS 1ST VIRTUE OF SOCIAL INS. LIKE TRUTH IS 1ST VIRTUE OF SYSTEM OF THOUGHT
RIGHT IS PRIOR TO GOOD: RAWLS VS GREATEST GOOD OF GREATEST NO.: BENTHAM
1ST VIRTUE MEAN THAT TRUTH AND JUSTICE ARE UNCOMPROMISING
JUSTICE IS ALL ABOUT BALANCING
DESERT :left_right_arrow:NEED :left_right_arrow: MERIT
RAWLS DOESN'T TAKE EQUALITY AND LIBERTY AS ANTITHETICAL BUT AS COMPLEMENTARY
RAWLS HELD THAT PEOPLE DIFFER IN ATLENT SO INEQUALITY IS INEVITABLE
HOWEVER INEQUALITIES CAN BE JUSTIFIED WHEN IT RESULTS INTO RESOURCES WHICH CAN BE UTILISED FOR LEAST ADVANTAGED
THOSE WHO ARE MOST TALENTED WILL GET MORE WEALTH
BUT THESE POSSESION OF GREATER WEALTH AND INCOME IS JUSTIFIED INLY WHEN IT IS USED FOR WEAKER SECTIONS OF SOCIETY
IN THIS WAY HE SUPPORTS PROGRESSIVE TAXATION
WHY PEOPLE WILL CONTRIBUTE FOR LEAST ADVANTAGED:
BECOZ WILL FOUN IT RATIONAL BEHIND VEIL OF IGNORANCE
WHAT WE POSSES IS NOT ONLY BECOZ OF TALENT BUT ALSO BECOZ OF CHANCE(ACCIDENT OF BIRTH)
HENCE WE SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE WHO ARE NOT LUCKY AS WE ARE
IF WILL NOT AGREE THERE WILL BE NO PEACE AND STABILITY IN THE SOCIETY
ABOVE PRINCIPLE IS FAIR BECOZ:
IT GIVES OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE ONE TALENT : DESERT
ALSO THOSE WHO ARE LEAST ADVANTAGED
WILL FIND IT FAIR
BECAUSE EVERONE HAS LIBERTY
EVERYONE HAD OPPORTUNITY
AND INTEREST OF LEAST ADVANTAGED IS ALSO BEING TAKEN CARE OF: HUMAN DIGNITY
CSR CONCEPT : IS BASED ON THIS RAWL'S CONCEPY