The Original Position is when people have conception of the good, are rational, and contain a sense of justice. The concept of the good can be conflicting and opinion oriented, but the sense of justice is institutes what is right or wrong. In the Original Position don't have the Veil of Ignorance, which is described as one's natural endowments and circumstances of class, race, sex, gender and the sort of aspects that one can not choose in life. The Veil of Ignorance also incorporates inclinations and aspirations in an attempt to conceptualize the good.
John Rawls' makes the claim that incorporating the doctrine of justice as fairness is a good method in selecting principles of justice. Justice as fairness can be broken down into two principles of justice.
[...] I have found that this theory holds limitations due to the complexity of human nature. To do away with taxation and government interference means to assume that citizens will do the right thing by voluntarily giving to the less fortunate through charities or other government-independent programs. Rejecting taxation and following Nozick's ideal minimal state also assumes that citizens will conduct the activities that governments have previously been responsible for. It is unlikely that the average citizen will sit around and think to establish a post office by their means, or administer education to poor children. [...]
[...] According to Nozick, forcing redistribution, as Rawls suggests, would make people the source of money for others and thus ends to the means of the prosperity of others. In this ay inequalities are preferred and natural. Nozick says that when one has talents or skills that create inequalities in wealth then the owner of the talent or skill should be allowed to keep all of the wealth he earns, since it is he who has created it. In Nozick's opinion, to interfere with the natural distribution of wealth creates imbalance and neglect of the natural system of the “invisible hand.” The concept of the “invisible hand” is an economic term that refers to when a company in a market creates a new product and can then set the standard for pricing. [...]
[...] Determining how much should be taken from the providers of the means of the end of social justice can be calculated by economists and other financial advisors. An economist can analyze the inflation of a market economy, and what a person can live on comfortably, and a financial analyst can determine how much taxation is necessary to perform basic works without indulgence in spending. Rawls says that people with low incomes benefit greatly from the aid of others. The people with low incomes are then able to build wealth, once they are given basic needs. [...]
[...] When he becomes prosperous, the former less fortunate child can then distribute some of his wealth in order to help the less fortunate maintain life and build wealth, which will in turn create social justice and build the economy. Essentially, a modern society should take into account both the ideals of Rawls and Nozick. Each finds fault in the other which can be beneficial in determining what route is most suitable. My conclusion is that Rawls' ideals bring more equality than the ideals [...]
[...] Nozick's famous “Entitlement Theory of Justice” elaborates more on his views of the distribution of justice. Nozick's theory is that any distribution is just which involves original acquisition, transfer, repeated application, or rectification. He goes on to say that something that is acquired must be acquired justly; likewise transfers must be made justly as well. The idea of rectification states that the first one to acquire something is then the owner of it, regardless if others desire to own what was acquired by the owner. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee