What is Justice?
It is from behind the “veil of ignorance” proclaimed by John Rawls, basically meaning
without identity or not knowing who you are, that I must give the general
principle/s of “justice” which should be used to govern society. This philosophical inquiry overlaps into
several areas; requiring the examination and thought given to ethics, political
philosophy (politics) and possibly even logic.
Without knowing who I am, my social
status, wealth, age or gender I believe I would agree with John Rawls in that I
would foremost want to be guaranteed fair treatment and opportunities to
succeed in a society. I also like the
way John Stuart Mill defined liberty and I find it to be remarkably similar to
the ideas written by Thomas Jefferson in “The
Declaration of Independence.” They both were influenced by John Locke because
they insist that there are basic human rights that need to be protected; an
idea first put forth by Locke that he called “inalienable personal rights.” These are rights that all people have. They are needs that must be met in order to
live and maintain a functioning society.
Mill adds a boundary on these rights by stating that they shouldn’t harm
another or infringe on the right of others. I also tend to agree with Rawls
concept of “justice” because he believes that truly “just” means it must be
truly “fair.” The two are
one-in-the-same or intrinsically linked.
Social utility is the core principle of social justice according to
Mill. Social utility is basically like
democracy in that it’s a majority rule type system by defining justice as
whatever “creates the greatest social benefit for the greatest number of
people.”(Chaffee570) This seems fair at
first, until realizing that a majority of people can be disillusioned,
deceived, misinformed and uniformed by means of manipulation and propaganda. That sort of thing could and most certainly
has led to unjust action and choices. Unfortunately
this allows for potentially large portions of the population to feel unfairly
treated and that justice did not occur.
I find Rawls concept of
“justice” to be both a sound and valid argument because to be fair is to be
just and to be just is to be fair. I
simply cannot find or think of an instance where they are not one in the
same. I do not find Mill’s social
utility to be quite as convincing an argument.
There is no proof that the fairest course of action is always the most
popular. Mill did make some very good
points about liberty that are valid. His
insightful idea to include free thought and expression undoubtedly laid the
foundation for the “Bill of rights” in
the American “Constitution.” He also
insisted that one has the freedom to exercise these rights as long as they don’t
harm anyone else or infringe in any way on another’s rights. These are both important ideas when
considering “justice” in a society. John Locke’s “inalienable personal rights”
concept has validity in that it means that no one person should hold the power
of life and death over another. No one
should be denied the ability, opportunity or necessary resources to
survive.
I would create a just society by
governing on the principles of rights and liberty and equality and fairness
with each individual having the freedoms to engage in any form of activity they
so choose as long as they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others,
whether purposefully or otherwise. These
same rules would apply to corporations and governments organizations alike. Some particular instances where it is
necessary due to location and resources for some people to suffer relocation or
seizure of property for the greater good should be duly, fairly, timely and
completely compensated. In order to prevent
the prediction of Karl Marx we would not use a monetary system. Monetary systems are inherently flawed and have
only proved to promote greed. Greed
compels and tempts individuals to do immoral or unethical practices often
leading to the unfair treatment, violation of rights and harm of others. With
term limits on policy makers, proficiency tests and equal representation, laws
would be fair and just. In a just
society, taxes would be evenly spread out by the use of resources. Those that use more and consume the most put
more strain on the society and system.
Therefore they should be required to pay more especially if those
resources are used for profit. The
consequences for violating laws should be fair and swift. All penalties for violations are the same
regardless of any status. There are no
exceptions.
Works
Cited Page
Chaffee,
J. (2013). “The Philosopher’s Way: A text with readings” 5th Ed.
City
University of New York, Pearson
No comments:
Post a Comment