Socioeconomic factors in the global world

Socio-Economic System

Determining what is right and wrong or good and bad has plagued scholars, philosophers, and theologians since the beginning of history. The earliest evidence of this moral dilemma can be found in the ancient writings of Plato and Socrates. The debate and discussion has and transcended the centuries as individuals such as St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Voltaire, and Immanuel Kant have all contributed their viewpoints. Still, the debate continues. A determination of what is right and wrong, good or bad, affects every aspect of a society's activities including its culture and economy and against this background attempts have been made to reorganize society along particular ethical lines but the question remains what constitutes a good socio-economic system?

With all the available ethical theories that have been offered throughout history the one that attempts to reach the greatest measure of fairness is the one proposed by political philosopher John Rawls. Rawls' views of egalitarian liberalism depart substantially from those of the philosophers, such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, advocates of utilitarianism, who argued that the proper course of action in any situation is the one that maximized the overall good of the society. Instead, Rawls argued, instead, the basis of any decision turns on justice as fairness (Rawls, 1999).

Rawls approach begins with the Social Contract theory espoused by John Locke but builds on this concept. Rawls suggests a condition he calls the Original Position (OP). In this situation, Rawls theorizes that society examines every decision from the standpoint of fundamental fairness and ignores the influences of social order or advantage. It is a totally egalitarian position and it forces decisions to be made free from all other contingencies such as natural talent or ability, social backgrounds, or history. In Rawls' society everyone is considered to free and equal, to possess the same level of opportunity, and to be oriented toward providing the greatest benefit to all members of society. In Rawls' society, the concept of fairness frames all decision making without sacrificing the individualism of each member of society.

Rawls' split with utilitarianism is in his belief that a just society is one where all the essential goods of society, such as liberty, opportunity, wealth, and the intangibles such as self-respect are distributed equally among the population. The only time that this equal distribution can be varied, according to Rawls, is when unequal distribution operates to the benefit of those less advantaged. For Rawls, the focus of society should be on those less advantaged and to allow inequality to be allowed when it benefitted the less advantage inures to the benefit of all society. Contrast this altruistic viewpoint with that of utilitarianism where the right and wrong is determined by what is best for the greatest number. Utilitarianism promotes tyranny by the majority while Rawls' theory bases a determination as to right and wrong on what is just, what is fair (Mill, 2008). The resulting society is understandably much different.

In a Rawls' society, all citizens would hold differing views of the world but each would be completely free to do so without restraint from others. All citizens would willingly cooperate with one another and follow the rules and laws that have been mutually accepted by everyone. Citizens would be willing to follow these rules because they are assured that everyone else is willing to do similarly. Reasonableness is the standard and plurality of thought is widely accepted. It is understood that differences between individuals occur but that everyone is free to reach his or her own conclusions on the matters that most often cause disputes. Imposition of ones will on another is not necessary in that all views are accepted.

In order for Rawls' theory to operate effectively one must accept his belief on human nature. Rawls believed that human beings are not naturally self-centered which is another area where he differs from the utilitarianism. Pain and pleasure are not part of Rawls' theory. Rather, he centers his theory on the concept of justice. Rawls strongly argued that humans have the capacity for genuine toleration and respect for other humans. From this premise Rawls felt that true pluralism was possible and a tolerance for true democracy throughout the world community was possible.

With so many different views circulating what is to provide stability in a society based upon the views of Rawls? What keeps anarchy from developing at any moment? According to Rawls, stability is provided through what he describes as an overlapping consensus (Love, 2003). Laws are developed that support the basis comprehensive doctrine but for differing reasons. Each citizen supports the same laws but for different reasons. Consensus is not necessarily a compromise but a balancing of interests. Each citizen is free to hold his or her own belief and the overlap between beliefs is what forms enforceable law and the resulting stability.

Another significant premise of Rawls' system is that there are sufficient resources in society for everyone's basic needs to be satisfied. If such basic resources are in short supply it is no longer possible for there to be a just distribution. Distribution becomes subject to standards beyond fairness but because Rawls' is a theoretical model only he fails to address what might occur with such contingency and, obviously, this is one of the major criticisms of his theory. Utilitarianism would argue that this where the greatest good for the greatest number is legitimized.

The beauty of Rawls' theory is in its emphasis on fairness and equality. Under such circumstances the ground rules are present for all citizens to lead a decent life. Wide levels of divergence between individual members of society are eliminated. There is not a segment in society for haves and have nots. There is no such thing as a rich family or poor family; there is distinction between races or even genders. Because social benefits are distributed more or less evenly there is no basis or reason for discrimination in any form. Any inequalities that are created in such a society are only because such creation works for the benefit of all citizens. Equality is the baseline and any inequalities must improve everyone's situation.