Rawl's Scenario Base Of Principles example essay topic

Phil. 104 Word Count: Take Home Exam # 1: Essay-2 John Rawls never claimed to know the only way to start a society, but he did suggest a very sound and fair way to do so. He based his just scenario on two principles of justice. His first principle of justice was that everyone should have the same rights as others. His following policy decision was that in the event of any inequalities, they should be to the benefit to everybody, and available to all people in the society. This original Rawl's approach to justice has been highly revered by philosophers to this day.

This is mostly because Rawl's has thought up one of the fairest Utopia since the days of Socrates. This is not an easy of a task as it sounds. Though when analyzed by even the most na " ive philosophers, it seems that Rawl's scenario base of principles are pretty obvious and simple. Maybe because some of these same principles can be found in present day society. The United States tries to pride itself in maintaining these two principles at all costs. In some countries even regarding these principles as fair can cause you to go away for a very long time.

The most commonly known to the term "political prisoner" is Ged hun Choe kyi Niyati, the eleventh Pa nchen Lama, as proclaimed by the Dalai Lama in 1995. The record holding youngest political prisoner is a nine-year-old Chinese boy seized by the Chinese Government. A parent should have no fear of losing a child like this. Under Rawl's system, tragedies such as this are virtually impossible. Under the first principle that states the rights of all are equal. Rawl's principles were found justified by visualizing real people forming a system of laws including the ramifications of a "justified complaint".

A justified complaint is an accusation by a member of society against another member of society. To have a system of justice the society must have means of answering the beckoning of the populace. If a society does not attend to the offense of its own people then it is not a true society. Society is based on the principle of a consensus unanimously choosing their governing rules and laws.

However the limitations of a "justified complaint" are unclear depending on what the consensus agrees to. Though the one rule that must apply is the fact that a complaint must be made by a law abider to be a "justified complaint". Commonsense shows us there must be a glass floor law some where in law making. To prove the second principle in that these glass floor laws are available to everyone within the society.

The fact of the matter is that even a person not belonging to a society may have many of these glass floor rights. For instance if a citizen has property this property is theirs and they own the containing possessions. Even without society interference the citizen will protect his property and possessions and is even sometimes better off alone defending them. So it is proven that these glass floors exist, and that they justify the second of Rawl's principles. Though do any glass ceilings exist in lawmaking to prove Rawl's principles; any intelligent person would guess that this must be true if glass floors exist.

In a binding community no one member can become the absolute law. In spite of the fact that there might be some diversified social classes. There may be constituents with significantly more power but, definitely not with ultimate power over others in the society. This is a strong basis for the Rawl's theory of fairness, supported by the first principle of justice. The first principle of justice stating terms on which we deal with our fellow human being. Rawl's laws are all assumed to be enforced by fear of punishment, but in some cases it might be enforced in other ways.

Such as a child is unlikely to kill his or her parents and a woman is unlikely to kill her spouse. It would not be legal but it would also be immoral for the individual so it is less likely and consequently enforced. If a law does not enforce itself by fear of punishment, then one might wonder why the law even exists. The law must exist to prevent others from breaking the rule, even if the moral of some individuals upholds the law. Rawl's second principle gives a reason for this, in that an inequality is permitted if the authorizing society will make this inequality available to everyone. Also the inequalities will be to the benefit of everyone in their social class.

To dare this hypothesis Rawl's put reasonable people in the scenario he envisioned. When one does this and only after one does this will one truly understand how strong or weak their scenario actually is. A scenario is weakened with every event of a principle failing and strengthened with every event of a principle passing in a real society. Reasonable people determine procedures by the majority as to the definition of a "justified complaint" based on the passing parts of the principles.

Also Rawl's "institutional structure" was designed to be changed in order to fix the failing parts of the two principles. This is the security of Rawl's design in which any problem might alike the "Gaia belief" fix itself. This is not an unreasonable plan to rely on the system itself opposed to more principles adding to the restriction of the people in the society. Rawl's trusts his original design and lets it fly even without any other safety switches. Political prisoners are people involved or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system. Rawl's plan of dealing with an issue like this is determined by the procedures of the law based on the two principles.

The two principles are fair and strong enough to uphold Rawl's entire system. Therefore because of Rawl's views we as a people can think better than before, and will hopefully make justice fair for the future.