Good Example Of A Defense Of John Rawls’ “Theory Of Justice” Essay

In 1971, John Rawls, an American moral and political philosopher, proposed a theory of justice based on the concept of the social contract. The theory stipulates two principles. The first principle states that each person in a society should have, at least, the most extensive basic rights comparable to the rights of everyone else. For example, the rights laid out in the first 10 amendments to the constitution should apply to everyone in society, because they are basic rights; other rights, however, such as the right to drive, are not “basic rights” and do not universally apply. Secondly, inequality in the distribution of rights and privileges should be tolerated only to the extent that they benefit the historically disadvantaged. For example, Rawls would support Affirmative Action, even though it is a policy based on discrimination, because it is intended to “even out the playing field” for historically disadvantaged candidates. This theory of justice is meant to promote a morally just society.
Rawls’ theory of justice can be defended from the utilitarian position, a philosophical position proposed by John Stuart Mill. According to utilitarianism, actions can be considered ethical if they are of benefit to the most people possible. Because Rawls’ theory aims to ensure equality of opportunity (rather than equality of outcome) for all people, his theory is in accordance with the utilitarian ethical position. The theory can also be defended from the deontological moral theory proposed by Immanuel Kant, which states that the morality of an action is based on the intent of the actor; thus, because the theory is motivated by the desire for all people to achieve maximum success and happiness, it is moral.
Critics of Rawls’ theory have objected to its limited scope. Rawls believed that justice should apply only to the basic structure of society; but some people believed that it should apply to microcosms of society, such as businesses and households. Rawls would reply that, as individuals within a society, we should all be considered equal; but as individuals within a business, organization, or household, we should accept that we occupy different statuses according to a hierarchy.