John Rawls was neo-kantian and a political thinker of the 20th Century. John Rawls believes justice as fairness to society. Some of society seen justice as an unfairness act but, could not really explain why they may feel justice is unfair. John Rawls helped explain what unfairness may mean to society and that’s subjectivity of justice: what may be fair to me, may not be fair to others. John Rawls explained 2 principles of fairness one is equality and the other is difference. Equality in justice is every person should be treated to where all offices are open to them examples would be jobs, education, living condition, law, and etc.
Regardless of social background, ethnicity or even sex individuals should have the same opportunity as anyone else. John Rawls argues that any individual should have fair opportunity and should also have an equal chance as another of similar natural abilities. Which in this case is not reality, there are no fairness is wages, discrimination when it comes to jobs, and law. People who were unfortunate enough to be born in an unjust world would not get the same opportunity as those who are fortunate enough to have a high chance of success and better living conditions.
The other principle of fairness is the difference principle which regulates about inequalities. The difference principle is only permitted inequalities that work to the advantage of the worst off. When justice benefits those who are advantage and does not benefit to those who are less fortunate this is where justice can be unfair. Solution: John Rawls solution to these issues is the maximal state. Which are taxation, law, and compensation, these were the solutions for people who were less fortunate.
The maximum state only applies in situations of uncertainty when a person has no knowledge of the probabilities of various outcomes. The maximal state helped leveraged out the unfairness in the justice system. People who were richer would get taxed more and those who were less fortunate would be compensated. Taxing the richer people in society was still a goal for today’s president Barack Obama so the poorer people can get help with insurance and better school systems, even more a society where individuals can be secured by the richer people would help those who are in college, students would not have to worry about loans.
Taxing the richer people would benefit society because those who make less like those who are consider poor class would have an opportunity to have a better living (financially, educationally, environmentally, and health). It is statistically shown that those who are unfortunate have a lesser rate for living a long life, this could be due to the lack of education of what is good for your body and what is not or could be financial issues only being able to afford what may be unhealthy.
Another issue with the poorer class is people living in poverty, they are less fortunate because not only that they’re financially less off but the environment they are in is not sustainable for a living. Some families have situations where they can catch infectious diseases from the water they use John Rawls witness this first hand living in poverty himself his two brothers died from an illness that he transmitted to them unwillingly. To be advantageous in society is like a New York lottery, it’s a game of chance no one is born into this world knowing where they are going to be placed in society.
The issue is not that the richer people are being taking cared of, but that majority of society consist of people that are less fortunate around the world. To truly have a fair society everyone rich or poor should be taking cared of. Reason: John Rawls discovered the reason why society is shaped this way and why justice happens to be unfair to individual’s. The “Veil of Ignorance” Rawls wants individuals to imagine themselves before their own birth, before you know who you were and what you currently have. Would society really be considered unfair if the roles in life were reversed where the poor were rich and the rich were poor.
Society only seems unfair when a person is not benefiting from justice. John Rawls reasons of fairness to the modern world is 1. Things as they are now; are patently unfair. Average life expectancy and world income, richer people are expected to live longer and have on average majority of the worlds income. Sometimes is hard to take this unfairness seriously because we are always told if we work hard enough and never give up we to can gain success, continue to have ambition, effort and perseverance and we can actually make it.
The American dream hits everyone individually and allows society to be blind sided by statistics and John Rawls always noticed this about justice. Reason 2. Imagine if you were not you: The reason why society as a whole find it hard to come up with ways of fairness. Those who are benefiting from the justice system does not think twice about what it would be like to not have been in the position they are in now. This reason is where John Rawls came up with the veil of ignorance some individuals implicitly don’t see how the justice system was created to be beneficial only to a certain type of people.
This is unfair because we all allegedly are suppose to live in society as one however the just system only benefit to some. This brings us to reason 3. You know what needs to be fixed: any person who did study in the veil of ignorance is going to want 4 things to sum up a perfect system. That is, they would want the schools to be very good, fair level of education and opportunity for everyone regardless of where the school location is. A perfect example would be college institution where the name of the school makes the difference of how you are perceived after graduation, what jobs may hire you.
Individuals would want hospitals all hospitals to function excellently. Fair access to the law and decent housing for everyone. This kind of world describes places like Switzerland and Denmark. Who commit to society in ways America simply cannot. Last but not least is reason number 4. What to do next: and this is all depending on what society you happen to born in, again what may be fair to some may not be fair to others some may want to fix the environment (i. e. air pollution) and others may be more concerned with education.
Consequence: Question raised what if we lived in a world where all occupations made the same income? If we lived in a world where doctors, teachers, and butchers makes the same amount of income, it would be detrimental to society. To become a doctor, you would have to spend 8-10 years in school, the time spent on going for a doctor’s degree would not be worth it, if doctors were getting the same pay as teachers and butchers. Out of the three occupations many would choose to become a butcher rather than a doctor/teacher and that reason alone is bad for society.
Why? Not having doctors would lead to many deaths because their; would be no one who can help us with our health. Not having a teacher would not allow individuals in society to pursue careers like accounting, business, nursing or any job that can help society growth. This is why their must be a difference in wages when it comes to certain occupations, not wages that are too excessive, but just an amount that would want to make some one motivated. Each occupation has an income depending on the level of importance they have to society.
Contemporary Problem: Todays world theirs a huge gap between the rich and poor class, the middle class is dwindling. Individuals are finding this unfair because its very hard to maintain a decent living theirs bills that needs to be paid, family to take care of and many of necessities that needs attention but, not enough allocations of resource to support everyone. The majority of jobs that are hiring are low paying jobs.
Like retail, supermarket/entry level positions at banks and etc. ost of these jobs won’t take employees if their resume comes off over qualified, due to wage expectancy one might expect more. Unfortunately, not everyone is put in a position of opportunity to become a doctor or teacher to receive a better pay, not every community has the same level of education when it comes to schools. Some schools only accept certain students around their environment to keep the social class segregated, a parent actually got in trouble by the law when they lied about their kids address just so their child can have the same opportunity to education as others.
How can Rawls theory of justice be applied to todays issues? Solution: One solution for todays issues is minimum wage increase to $15/hr. this $6 increase would help leverage out those who are lesser off. I understand everyone’s reasoning for wanting a wage increase to be financially stable. All together if families are financially stable the economy will also be stable and grow because people will spend more which is bringing the economy up. However, does this not contradict the veil of ignorance?
Is giving a wage increase really the solution, wage increase may not be fair to the owners who pays their employees and still have to pay business expense. As wage increases so does the prices of business and business owners does not get a increase in what they make to pay off their workers and still pay the same amount of taxes, if not more. Think about people who attended college for four years put in the time and energy and probably making the same amount as someone who is making minimum wage in their career field.
Those career positions would want an increase as well Verizon employees are currently on strike for better package, and MTA bus/transit employees goes on strict every year for higher pay. This solution would contradict the difference principle those who are at a disadvantage would gain an advantage but those who had an advantage would not benefit in fact this would be detrimental to individuals who owns businesses which would make this solution unjust. Reason: What may seem fair to some will not be fair to others.
This is a constant friction because those who are advantageous may not even be able to imagine what it feels like to be at a disadvantage position to justice. If individuals are put into a position that benefit from justice they would feel like if everyone worked as hard as they did, they to would reach success with the same fair game. If otherwise they did not work as hard to seek the benefits of justice. However, when you are a certain race, ethnicity, sex, or come from a certain social class that is considered poor in reality you have to work twice as hard for fairness In justice to benefit.
When individuals are disadvantage their veil of ignorance is not understanding there is not enough resources to allocate from society it’s not right to take away earned property to give to the less fortunate. If the roles were reversed they would not want to give up their benefits. Simply giving a minimum wage increase is not the solution because it has more effect than just helping the less fortunate, a wage increase can have a negative impact on society as well.
Consequence: A minimum wage increase would only temporarily satisfy the less fortunate people in society, as wages get higher so does prices and sooner or later individuals will want another increase. This does not benefit a healthier economy, what individuals need is a true fair shot to a career opportunity and education no matter the race or social class. What is really fairness is everyone being able to benefit from the justice system, where no one is feeling like they are less fortunate.