ok so I really like the thoughts that Rawls has on justice. I think that it makes complete sense to have the rules set so that no one can be too much worse off than another. This would ideally end all poverty and distribute the wealth, not equally, but enough so that everyone can live comfortably. The best off do not need to have the millions upon millions that the do in our society, it is just plain unnecessary. Also, I like the idea that when deciding if something is just the first and most important thing to look at are those that have the least. The people who are comfortable do not really have much to complain about, but those who don’t are the ones who really need to be looked at. I also think that this goes beyond wealth. For instance, those in school who struggle should be given the most attention (assuming they are trying to do well) because it is important not to let them fall through the cracks. The children who are already flourishing obviously still need guidance, but I do not think they deserve all the attention just because the teacher may think they may achieve great things in the future. That will come to them naturally, in all likelihood. This is just one example that backs up Rawls, but there are plenty more which could do the same.
The idea of original position also agrees with me. If a society could look at everyone regardless of social status, gender, race, ect I think everyone would agree we as a society would be much better off. Rawls seems to be one of the few people we have read who truly looks out for the "little guy" and, personally, I like where he is going with it. I will admit that there are some flaws within his reasoning, as some have been mentioned in earlier posts, but for the most part he seems to have a very solid base that appears to be extremely logical, at least on paper. I will admit that creating a society that strictly follows his rules would be rather difficult to create, and many would protest as it seems as though it would be impossible for some to be as wealthy as they are today, but as I said on paper it seems to make a lot of sense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your post reminded me anthis article that I read the other day-I put the link below, if you want to read it.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8321967.stm
Haha but if you don’t, the main point is that a group of very rich Germans are petitioning for the German government to raise taxes. They are doing this because they believe that those who had “made a fortune through inheritance, hard work, hard-working, successful entrepreneurship, or investment should contribute by paying more to alleviate the crisis.” One of the organizers of the group claims that there are 2.2 million people with over 500,000 Euros in Germany who should be responsible for giving more to the less advantaged.
I think this is an interesting proposal in that it is close to what Rawls advocates, of the weakest receiving the greatest advantage, and also to what you describe as wanting in a society, that everyone provide so that each can live comfortably without complaint. I also think it is a little funny and also sad that the end of the article shows an obstacle to this type of system developing. Out of the 2.2 million Germans the group wants to pay more taxes, only forty-four have signed the petition so far. The end of the article has one of the signers quoted as saying he thought it “really strange that so few people came” to a recent rally, but the fact that so few people showed up seems kind of a stark reminder about personal self-interest. Even if the best off don’t need millions to live comfortably, it is hard to make the claim that the rich don’t in fact deserve to have what they have earned, or that other people, particularly those who have not worked like them, have any more claim to their help because of their own suffering.