In Rawls’ essay “A Theory of Justice,” he defines justice as “justice as fairness.” He basically says that in order for a community to be completely just as it makes and enforces laws, everyone in the community must agree to the rules being made. Also, they must wear a “veil of ignorance.” Rawls states, “Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like.” Rawls also states that majority should not rule decisions because then only the majority will benefit. Rather, decisions should be arranged so that the bottom minority can benefit.
In reading this piece, I have found many flaws in his ideas. For instance, the rules that were made would have to constantly be revised with each new generation. For instance, a child may not have the same beliefs as his/her parent and therefore would not agree with every single law in the society. That person would either have to leave the society (because 100% agreement or toleration is required) or the rules would have to be changed. The next generation would have the possibility of being brainwashed because they would not know anything but what their parents knew. Therefore they have no freedom of choice to go against foundations that were already laid. I do not believe that a community can be healthy if there is no room for change or growth. Next, I believe that the idea of the “veil of ignorance” is nearly impossible. I do not see how anyone would be able to completely remove any kind of bias they may have in order to make important decisions. This would be even harder if there had to be an entire community of people that were capable of this task.
Rawls’ idea of benefiting the minority is similar to the modern issue of affirmative action. I believe that both of these ideas work in theory, but fall apart when put into action. There is just too much room for abuse of power and unfair treatment. The idea of affirmative action contradicts itself. Its goal is to not be discriminating, and yet it discriminates against the majority. The way I see it, race should just not play any factor when trying to choose someone for a position. It’s like the words of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Well, I have a dream that one day race will not matter when applying for a job, but rather the qualifications of that person; that universities will not have to worry about meeting a certain quota for giving out scholarships. The fact of the matter is that no matter what we do, there will always be a minority. However, I suppose that actions can be taken to try to balance out the distribution. For example, here is a graph of the distribution of wealth in the US in 2005.
I wonder what our country would look like if it looked more like this.
In reading this piece, I have found many flaws in his ideas. For instance, the rules that were made would have to constantly be revised with each new generation. For instance, a child may not have the same beliefs as his/her parent and therefore would not agree with every single law in the society. That person would either have to leave the society (because 100% agreement or toleration is required) or the rules would have to be changed. The next generation would have the possibility of being brainwashed because they would not know anything but what their parents knew. Therefore they have no freedom of choice to go against foundations that were already laid. I do not believe that a community can be healthy if there is no room for change or growth. Next, I believe that the idea of the “veil of ignorance” is nearly impossible. I do not see how anyone would be able to completely remove any kind of bias they may have in order to make important decisions. This would be even harder if there had to be an entire community of people that were capable of this task.
Rawls’ idea of benefiting the minority is similar to the modern issue of affirmative action. I believe that both of these ideas work in theory, but fall apart when put into action. There is just too much room for abuse of power and unfair treatment. The idea of affirmative action contradicts itself. Its goal is to not be discriminating, and yet it discriminates against the majority. The way I see it, race should just not play any factor when trying to choose someone for a position. It’s like the words of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Well, I have a dream that one day race will not matter when applying for a job, but rather the qualifications of that person; that universities will not have to worry about meeting a certain quota for giving out scholarships. The fact of the matter is that no matter what we do, there will always be a minority. However, I suppose that actions can be taken to try to balance out the distribution. For example, here is a graph of the distribution of wealth in the US in 2005.
I wonder what our country would look like if it looked more like this.
In the first chart, the top one fifth had most of the wealth, but what if most of it belonged to the middle class and the top and bottom had the least? What do you guys think about this?
1 comment:
You say "Rawls also states that majority should not rule decisions because then only the majority will benefit. Rather, decisions should be arranged so that the bottom minority can benefit."
Actually he argues that any contract entered into must be beneficial for all parties for it to succeed -- likewise he explores the idea that a society should not be judged by how it treats the "best" of it's members, but how it treats the "least or weaker" members. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.....
"I do not see how anyone would be able to completely remove any kind of bias they may have in order to make important decisions. This would be even harder if there had to be an entire community of people that were capable of this task." do we not do this all the time? We ask judges to be objective arbitor's of justice; we ask regular "people" to be jurors; we ask business owners to put aside biases to serve entire public; we trust leader that they put aside biases to look out for our interests; etc.?
Many see Affirmative Action as an unjust solution to a justice issue -- what would be possible alternatives? Historically we saw the "all men and women created equal" did not quite work out. Indeed, even after hundreds of years of "oppression" of minorities and women, 40 years of a law tryining to "level the field" seems insignificant to a certain degree. Thoughts?
Love the graphs -- interesting
Post a Comment