Just as Fair
...istic view of society, not everyone will have all the same things, or be in all the same positions. It is inevitable that some people will be in slightly better or worse positions. This does not corrupt a vision of a just society; it merely enhances the need for justice. Rawls states two principles of justice in his essay, the first of which is that each person participating in a practice, or affected by it, has an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all. And secondly, inequalities are arbitrary unless it is reasonable to expect that they will work out for everyone’s advantage, and provided the positions and offices to which they attach, or from which they may be gained, are open to all. (761) The first principle deals with the fact that if one is part of a practice, and does his or her part, then they should reap the benefits of their actions. This is a notion that gives a person the freedom to participate in a practice and to have an equal opportunity to receive rewards for their services. The second principle enables a society to function on different levels, with different levels of equality, depending on their duties. Justice is a composite of three ideas: liberty, equality, and reward for services contributing to the common good. (761) Justice does not require however only an equal liberty. If, however, a greater liberty were possible for all without loss or conflict, then it would be irrational to settle on a lesser liberty. (762) No serious distortion of the concept of justice is likely to follow from including within it the concept of the greatest equal liberty. (762) This states that the maximum good can still be acquired, if it is acquired for all, and is the main goal of a society. This also terminates the idea that a greater advantage to one can be balanced by a disadvantage to another. (762) Players in a game do not protest about there being different positions, such as batter, pitcher, catcher and the like, nor to there being various privileges and powers as specified by the rules. (762) Nor do citizens of a country object to there being the different offices of government such as president, senator, governor, judge, and so on, each with their special rights and duties. (762) These details are not seen as inequalities at all. There is a necessary need to have people in different positions, with different duties. What can be seen as an inequality however is the powers delegated to an official, or perhaps the pay. These inequalities are allowed however if there is reason to believe that the practice with the inequality, or resulting in it, will work for the advantage of every party engaging in it. (762) These principles can be summed up by the idea of mutual self interest. This idea is best illustrated by families. In families, although there are individuals with there own wants and needs, they are tied together to the family with the intense loyalty and the devotion of the individuals. (763) One aspect of this concept that must hold true is that a man in a lower position must not be envious of a man in a higher position, unless he thought that he being there was the result of injustice. (762) A man should be able to accept his position, and understand that it is for the common good. Cases of justice are often found to be compromises between two parties pressing their issues upon one another, where an equilibrium must be found. Parties must be careful about the issues that they press upon others. It should be understood that an advantageous situation now to a certain party, may be disadvantageous to the same party in the future, yet the matters one originally fought for, shall not be changed. This should keep the matters that one finds unjust reasonable, and overall mutual. One must acknowledge the principles of Justice even when to ones disadvantage, (764) for they later may be to his advantage. Rawls views of justice can be established by a large mutually self interested group of people. Where the common practice entails what is good for all, must also be good for one. All persons in such a society must contribute, in order to receive the equal benefits. Nozicks concept of a just society is quite different, almost the opposite of Rawls. Nozick bluntly states that the principle of fairness is objectionable and unacceptable. (765) Nozick describes a society that he imagines would fit well inside Rawls view of a just society. In this society everyone is delegated one day of the year, to contribute to the continuation of one of the benefits of the society. On ones day to contribute, it is not necessary to give up ones day for the good of the society. The acceptance of benefits is not enough to bind us. (765) Imagine an organization started in your neighborhood that decides to clean your street once a week, and eventually, they expe...