John Rawls’ Two Principles of Justice
In this essay, I argue against John Rawls’ principles of justice, as they cannot result in a fair and just society as intended and are difficult to implement. I begin by giving a general overview of Rawls and his two principles of justice. I then explain how a society governed by these principles would likely not result in a fair and just society, as many societies could not realistically function on this premise, as it is an idealistic, unrealistic expectation.
John Rawls was an American political theorist who wrote the book, “A Theory of Justice” in 1971 in which he explained the concept of justice as fairness. Rawls’ purpose was to explain principles that would direct social institutions to a just society. According to Rawls, “the primary subject of the principles of social justice is the basic structure of society, the arrangement of major social institutions into one scheme of cooperation.” (p.54) These principles of justice are only for institutions and do not apply to individuals and their actions. It is the institutions that are our basic structure of society that form public system rules. “The principles of justice are to apply to social arrangements understood by the public.” (p.56)
The following are Rawls’ …show more content…
From my personal interpretation of Rawls’ principles of justice, I can’t help but feel that Rawls’ principles of justice are idealistic and unrealistic. In terms of these principles being idealistic, I believe that Rawls created a theory that may indeed create fairness and justice in society, but in order for that to occur, everything must function perfectly in a particular way. Not every citizen will “buy in” to all the rules to live by these principles as every individual comes with his own views, opinions, and desires. In my opinion, Rawls is making an idealistic assumption that all citizens will
In this essay, I argue against John Rawls’ principles of justice, as they cannot result in a fair and just society as intended and are difficult to implement. I begin by giving a general overview of Rawls and his two principles of justice. I then explain how a society governed by these principles would likely not result in a fair and just society, as many societies could not realistically function on this premise, as it is an idealistic, unrealistic expectation.
John Rawls was an American political theorist who wrote the book, “A Theory of Justice” in 1971 in which he explained the concept of justice as fairness. Rawls’ purpose was to explain principles that would direct social institutions to a just society. According to Rawls, “the primary subject of the principles of social justice is the basic structure of society, the arrangement of major social institutions into one scheme of cooperation.” (p.54) These principles of justice are only for institutions and do not apply to individuals and their actions. It is the institutions that are our basic structure of society that form public system rules. “The principles of justice are to apply to social arrangements understood by the public.” (p.56)
The following are Rawls’ …show more content…
From my personal interpretation of Rawls’ principles of justice, I can’t help but feel that Rawls’ principles of justice are idealistic and unrealistic. In terms of these principles being idealistic, I believe that Rawls created a theory that may indeed create fairness and justice in society, but in order for that to occur, everything must function perfectly in a particular way. Not every citizen will “buy in” to all the rules to live by these principles as every individual comes with his own views, opinions, and desires. In my opinion, Rawls is making an idealistic assumption that all citizens will