John Rawls’s Fight on Theory of Justice

John Rawls

Moral & Political Philosopher

(1921-2002)

John Rawls’s famous work, ” A Theory of Justice” published on 1971 holds the basis of egalitarianism, where he was focused on creating a society which is fair and just. Egal is an archaic word for equal or at the same level be it social, political, economic or civil rights.

To support this idea, Rawls derived two principles of Justice – one being, everyone is entitled to basic freedom regardless of social class which includes freedom of speech, freedom to own a personal property, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The other one is the Difference Principle, which brings forth equality to all so as long the less fortunate is better off too.

Rawls then create a thought experiment called “Original Position” to support his principles. Society, or our Self is to be placed behind a Veil of Ignorance – the veil being that they will not know their place in society. For instance, they will not know if they would be rich or poor, a lighter skin color or a darker one, with or without religion, or even their intelligences and abilities. Certainly if one has no clue on these things, then he or she will have to choose the principles Fairest to all.

Question is, are these principles really practical in our fast and competitive society? No. As I doubt we could constantly place ourselves behind the veil of ignorance for too long. Rawls argues that inequality could be justified by redistribution of benefits to the least privileged. In certain circumstances such as working life, we want to earn what we work for. Philosopher Robert Nozick, a colleague of Rawls in Harvard points out that resources are produced by people and that people have rights to the things they produce. Thus, redistribution to improve this condition would be unfair and that would lead to people working involuntarily for others and deprive people of the goods and opportunities they have created through time and effort. (Nozick,1974)

This is of course acceptable if we voluntarily choose to do so.

Take for instance the job of a fisherman, his days spent fishing under harsh environments out in the rough seas are later rewarded with nothing but some of his catch being distributed equally among his townsfolk who do not know how to fish. It would be unsurprising if this fisherman would choose to hide some of his catch just so less would be taken from him.

Now we don’t want that, do we?

If they’re happy and they know it

The word utility derives from the Old French word utilite and it means the quality or condition of being useful. Utilitarianism is a theory by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mills. In this theory, the focus is on the majority in which an action is justified by how beneficial it is to the mass. In teleological ethics, the key emphasis is on the consequences of an action to the larger group. An action is deemed ethical if it benefits and (or) approved by the majority and vice versa.  Thus, in this particular circumstance, the end justifies the means.

The twist that utilitarianism offers is that it is possible to do the right thing even if it derives from a bad motive. The question here is, “What ought a man to do?” (West, 2004). Now take a moment to put yourself into the shoe (or non at all) of a man from an indigenous tribe that practices cannibalism; it is deemed ethical to consume human being because the majority approves and if you refuse to do so, it is unethical because that would upset the majority.

I regard this theory as relevant and applicable to the society of today. I mean, are we not already living in a world where the majority of us are conformed to do things to get approval from the mass? This approval and is very much bound and related to culture. In western culture, public display of affection is acceptable by the mass but in comparison to local culture if you were to start groping and kissing each other in public excessively, you might just find your picture on Facebook being ridiculed. Acceptance to a particular action is also closely tied to culture of the mass.

    

How do you feel looking at the pictures above?

We already are practicing utilitarianism and applying it to our daily lives as it gives us some form of order to follow to determine what is ethical or not. It is the simplest form of ethical determination that in a nutshell, basically tells you to please other people. If the majority approves of what you are going to do, it does not matter how you do it but as long as the consequence is beneficial to them, it is okay. It is ultimately to achieve the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. At the end of the day, the real question here is, will you be happy and does it matter?

Kantian Ethics- Deontological Theory

“Deontology is the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions” (“Deontological ethics,” 2014).  Deon means duty, that which is governed by rules and regulations. When we follow our duty, we are deemed ethical, and vice versa. Deontology focuses ONLY on the mean, or the process of whether one has fulfilled their duty, and not the end result or consequences of one’s means. For example, if I find best friend cheating during an exam, my duty is to report it to my lecturer, however, if I choose to lie in order to save the friendship, by considering this end result, I am deemed unethical according to Kant, because cheating is morally wrong and this is universally accepted.

The primary formulation of Kant’s ethics is Categorical Imperative. Categorical means unconditional, and Imperative means Obligation, that is a commitment or duty a person is morally or legally bound to. Kant believes a person is duty-bound to follow rules even under the most extreme situations. For example, regardless of the act of taking life, a soldier is duty bound to kill their enemies.

There are two significant formulations of the Categorical Imperative:

1. “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”(Anscombe, 2001) Maxim means a ‘statement’ that describes a course of action to be tested if it could be applied universally.

2. “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end” (Anscombe, 2001) Kant believes we have to respect people, treat them with dignity as an end in themselves, and not use them for our own benefit as it is against universal law. For example, I have to respect the deceased, deceased’s family, and the public’s dignity if, I, as a hotel manager, were to cover up a suicide incident to protect my hotel’s reputation. I am being disrespectful, irresponsible, and untruthful. I have a duty to answer to my own profession. Imagine if all hotel managers did this?

If the first and second formulation has contradictions, therefore the maxim will be deemed unethical.

Can Kant’s Ethics be applied in today’s society?

No, because one has a duty to tell the truth even if it might result in harm to others. Therefore, obeying the rules of conduct can result in harm to others. A very Utopian philosophy.

Check out Kantian at  http://global.britannica.com/…/158162/deontological-ethics

The Aristotelian: Being Virtuous and Happy?

   Aristotle

Greek Philosopher and Scientist

 (384-322 B.C)

What It means to be Happy

Aristotle’s famous philosophical work, Nicomachean Ethics, seeks to answer one key question, “What is the ultimate purpose of human existence?” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1097a30-34) Aristotle believes Happiness is the goal that comprises the totality of one’s life; not “Instant Gratification”, or pleasurable sensations that could be lost in a few hours, but how well a person has lived up to his full potential as a human being. Aristotle’s virtue ethics is about developing a person’s character with high moral standards and a strong will to do the right thing through constant learning and practice, especially in difficult situations. For example, it would totally be more fun spending the night “chilling” with buddies, but you know you would be better off completing that assignment. Happiness also requires the habitual exercise of intellectual Contemplation as it is the Greatest Realization of our Rational capacity. (“Introduction: Aristotle’s Definition of Happiness,” n.d.). Short term pleasure and long term Pain? That’s right, no thank you.

The Golden Mean Theory and Media Ethics

 Virtues are the mean, or balance between two undesirable extremes called Excess and Deficiency, created from controlling our desires too much or too little, such as self- control is the mean between impulsiveness (excess) and indecisiveness (deficiency) (Kemerling, 2011). Applying it in media, a journalist is writing a report on the case of a six-year old boy who attempted suicide in his school, the first reported case in the country. Excess is to publish the boy’s picture, his name, his school, and exactly where he lives, because you are merely reporting the truth of what happened. Deficiency is to Not publish the story at all, making your newspaper less newsworthy to the public compared to other newspapers. As a media ethics practitioner, the Mean is to publish the story, but minimize as much harm as possible unto the victim and his family by Not publishing the victim’s name, picture, and exact address but perhaps publishing which state, name and location of school, and victim’s age.

 Is Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics Ideal?

Nope. Because The Golden Mean cannot be applied for All virtues. What are the extremes of Knowledge? Should we take a little from Knowledge and a little from Ignorance to strike a balance? Nonsense. Also, if a character trait is defined a virtue, it is accepted as a virtue universally for all people in all times; how can That Be when what represents a virtue Varies to People across cultures and societies? (Mastin, 2008)

Till today, Aristotle’s intellectual concepts have remained embedded in Western thinking (Kenny, 2014). Check out this Aristotelian Society since 1880.. https://www.aristoteliansociety.org.uk/