Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Philosophy and Justice
Social Philosophies
A Theory of Justice by John Rawls
Quite a number of books and articles were published by John Rawls, a philosopher that held the James Bryant Conant University Professorship at Harvard University. He is, however, mainly famous for his book 'a Theory of Justice' where he attempts to define social justice. The work has tremendously impacted contemporary political views.
Rawls was discontented with the traditional philosophical claims regarding what actually makes a social institution just and regarding what justifies social or political policies and actions. The utilitarian claim maintains that societies ought to follow the greatest good for the greatest number. This claim has several issues, such that it appears to be coherent with the belief of the domination of majorities over the minorities. The intuitionist claim maintains that human beings feel what is actually right or wrong through some natural moral sense. This is actually also challenging since it basically explains justice by stating that individuals "know it when they see it," and it does not address the several conflicting human feelings. Rawls tries to develop a logical explanation of justice via the social contract approach. According to this particular approach, the society is somehow an agreement amidst all those within the society. If a society was actually an agreement,...
He mentions that the agreement is a totally theoretical one: he does not claim that individuals had existed outside the social state or had come up with agreements to develop a certain kind of society. Rawls starts his work with the image of justice as fairness. He recognizes the primary structure of the society as the basic subject of justice and recognizes justice as the very first virtue of social bodies (Mazzeno, 2010).
Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill
Utilitarianism is actually one of the most famous and powerful moral theories. Similar to other types of consequentialism, its main idea is that whether human actions are morally right or wrong, entirely relies on their impacts. Particularly, the only impacts of actions, which are significant, are the good and poor outcomes they produce. A major point in this particular article is concerned with the differentiation between personal actions and types of actions. Act utilitarian concentrate on the impacts of individual actions (like John Wilkes Booth's assassination of Abraham Lincoln) whereas rule utilitarians concentrate on the impacts of kinds of actions (like stealing or killing). According to utilitarians, the aim of morality is to actually make life better by increasing the quantity of good things (like anguish and discontent). They decline moral systems or codes, which…
References
Gray, J. (2011, April 26). Three Theories of Justice. Retrieved March 10, 2016, from Ethical Realism: https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/three-theories-of-justice/
Mack, E. (2001, July 1). Blind Injustice: John Rawls and "A Theory of Justice." Retrieved March 10, 2016, from The Atlas Society: http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/deeper-dive-blog/3858-blind-injustice-john-rawls-and-a-theory-of-justice
Mazzeno, L. W. (Ed.). (2010). A Theory of Justice - Summary" Critical Survey of Literature for Students. Retrieved March 10, 2016, from eNotes.com: http://www.enotes.com/topics/theory-justice#summary-the-work
Nathanson, S. (n.d.). Act and Rule Utilitarianism. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/home/about/
Moreover, how does he justify saying one would rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool who is satisfied? His point is obvious - it is better to have brains and not achieve happiness than be dumb and be contented. But Socrates, brilliant as he was, chose death over exile from Athens, which it can be argued did not lead to happiness in Socrates nor in the students who admired
John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty professes to be liberal but ends up with a distinctly 'non-liberal' feel when analysing the details. This paper endeavours to define exactly what Mills' notion of liberty is and how it should be regulated by studying his book "On Liberty." The main discrepancies of his theory will be highlighted so as to demonstrate the apparent contradiction between his ideology and the examples he chooses
Personal usefulness or utility is not required to clash with public usefulness. Usefulness or Utility is often misguided for pragmatism. but, pragmatism is the affinity to encourage certain preferred objective, regardless of the consideration between what is correct and reasonable. Utility is the standard level of being practical, and hence it must take into account not just what would generate a preferred objective, but what would encourage the maximum
Unfortunately, we have had no more success at finding that limit than Mill did, for what we see all around us today is that very same "political despotism" of which Mill speaks with trepidation. Mill writes that it is the "majority" who makes "the ways of mankind" (102-3), but his notion of "majority rule" appears to be based on the assumption that political despotism has not been enshrined. Majority rule
John Stuart Mill on Liberty In John Stuart Mill's brilliant 19th Century essay "On Liberty" he states that "the worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it." What Mills is purporting in that statement is that the State (the government) must not impede on the natural development of individual liberty. We are never to forget that we have inalienable rights for life and
E. herself very unhappy. Personal happiness should not be compromised for the sake of greater happiness of maximum number of people when the one person who would be most affected by your decision is you. I feel that Mill's concept is workable when rights of other people are involved. For example Katie would not be hurting anyone's rights by choosing to become a doctor. But lets consider another example. Larry