Rawls believes there needs to be a new system of justice created. He thinks it should be one where everyone in society, chooses together, the principles which will assign the basic rights of society and will determine the division of social benefits. He feels an action should only be done as long as it does not affect even the lowest class possible or those who are the least situated. He calls these principles of justice, justice as fairness. Rawls also mentions that people are born into a certain position or place in society and the way they grow up and the people they are around affects what decisions they will make and what they see as acceptable.
Overall, I think Rawls’s idea is a very good one. I like how he wants to make sure that any action taken will benefit the upper class, middle class, and the lowest class possible. He doesn’t think it is acceptable to follow through with an action that benefits the majority but hurts the minority. If everyone would accept his idea, especially those who are wealthier, it would help out those less unfortunate. For example, those who have money and can afford to give up some material things could help those who are suffering for food and a home by donating money to them. People could be less greedy and more giving.
I do agree, however, that people are born into certain positions in society. Obviously those who come from wealthier homes believe they have earned the right to live above others because they worked at it and created that kind of lifestyle for themselves. They also see more material things as a necessity, whereas, people coming from a least stable home would find those same material things as unnecessary. If everyone cooperated with each other, I believe individuals could help one another out so everyone could live a sufficient life. I do think it is fair that those who have worked hard for their money and wealthy lifestyles deserve to live that wealthy life, but I also think there should be certain rules that help those less unfortunate.
I also, definitely think, if an action is taken no one should have to sacrifice anything. Everyone, including the lowest class of society should be able to benefit from that action. Therefore, those who work hard deserve their earnings but everyone should get an equal opportunity to work that hard.
People may think that it is not possible for everyone to live a sufficient life even if given equal opportunities. They may feel everyone has these opportunities but do not care to perfect the skills needed to actually be successful. A lot of people also may disagree with Rawls’s idea that not even the minority should have to suffer from an action being taken, especially if the majority benefits. A lot of people only really care about their family and close friends. Those people are most likely in the same class level as them, therefore, as long as their family and friends are benefiting as well as them, the action is ok. People need to reach out to those who they do not know and start caring about strangers. If they do this then a lot can be achieved.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with you comment that people should be less greedy and more giving. However, I am not quite sure I agree with your solution to the problem. It seems that you are saying that all we need to do is have people that have a lot of money give to those that don't have much. The problem I see with this is that you can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to be solved. Although donations of money may be beneficial in some cases, problems may arise. For instance, people could abuse their donations and spend them on things they don't really need or on drugs or alcohol. Plus, once the money is used up, they are left exactly where they started. I think what needs to be done is to take that money and start some way for the less fortunate to be trained at a job. For example, I have a friend who wants to buy an apartment building and turn the bottom floor into a restaurant. Then, he will let less fortunate people or people that have recently gotten out of prison to live in the building (for close to nothing or nothing) and work for the restaurant. Then, those people have food and shelter and are also learning a trade that they can use to get other jobs and progress from there. I agree with what you said about everyone getting an opportunity to work hard and make a living and I believe this would be a great way of doing that.
I also believe that no matter what we do there will always be a "bottom of the food chain" as well and a group that is on top of the economic ladder. The real question here is how we can give everyone the opportunity to change their placement in a way that is fair to everyone.
I disagree that people are born into a certain social class. That's the caste system, and it doesn't exist here. Yes, people born into poor families are more likely to be poor when they're on their own, but there is nothing keeping them from moving up. Similarly, people born into wealthy families don't always stay wealthy. Economics of the country is such that we can improve or digress as we wish and according to our merit. Bill Gates wasn't born with $60 billion dollars; he worked hard to earn it. "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for life." This idiom sums up Rawls' mistake. You and he seem to prefer giving out fish. That's not the way to defeat the supposed class struggle that liberal philosophers like to criticize. I also disagree that no one should suffer as a result of a governmental action. When there are 300 million people who are under the government's authority, it is impossible to help everyone with every act. If we tried to do that, our hands would be tied to the point that no action was possible, which could lead to anarchy or a coup or a number of other things.
Justin- Thanks for including that quote, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for life." I meant to include that in my comment, but forgot.
Post a Comment