Home Essays Universality and...
Universality and Reversibility: Justice and Fairness
Topics: Immanuel Kant, Justice, Distributive justice Pages: 16 (5656 words) Published: January 21, 2013
The categorical imperative incorporates two criteria for determining moral right and wrong: universalizability and reversibility. Universalizability means the person's reasons for acting must be reasons that everyone could act on at least in principle. Reversibility means the person's reasons for acting must be reasons that he or she would be willing to have all others use, even as a basis of how they treat him or her. That is, one's reasons for acting must be reasons that everyone could act upon in principle, and the person's reasons must be such that he would be willing to have all others use them as well. Unlike utilitarianism, which focuses on consequences, Kantian theory focuses on interior motivations. The second formulation Kant gives of the categorical imperative is this: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end." Or never treat people only as means, but always also as ends. What Kant means by "treating humanity as an end" is that everyone should treat each human being as a being whose existence as a free rational person should be promoted. For Kant, this means two things: (a) respect each person's freedom by treating people only as they have freely consented to be treated beforehand, and (b) develop each person's capacity to freely choose for him or herself the aims he or she will pursue. Kant's second version of the categorical imperative can be expressed in the following principle: "An action is morally right for a person if, and only if, in performing the action, the person does not use others merely as a means for advancing his or her own interests, but also both respects and develops their capacity to choose freely for themselves." This version of the categorical imperative implies that human beings have an equal dignity that sets them apart from things such as tools or machines and that is incompatible with their being manipulated, deceived, or otherwise unwillingly exploited to satisfy the self-interests of another.
However, even if the categorical imperative explains why people have moral rights, it cannot by itself tell us what particular moral rights humans have. And when rights come into conflict, it cannot tell us which right should take precedence. Still, there seem to be three basic rights that can be defended on Kantian grounds:
1. Humans have a clear interest in being provided with the work, food, clothing, housing, and medical care they need to live.
2. Humans have a clear interest in being free from injury and in being free to live and think as they choose.
3. Humans have a clear interest in preserving the institution of contracts. Despite the attractiveness of Kant's theory, critics have argued that, like utilitarianism, it has its limitations and inadequacies. A first problem that critics have traditionally pointed out is that Kant's theory is not precise enough to always be useful. Second, some critics claim that although we might be able to agree on the kinds of interests that have the status of moral rights, there is substantial disagreement concerning what the limits of each of these rights are and concerning how each of these rights should be balanced against other conflicting rights. A third group of criticisms that have been made of Kant's theory is that there are counterexamples that show the theory sometimes goes wrong. Most counterexamples to Kant's theory focus on the criteria of universalizability and reversibility.
A very different view of rights is based on the work of libertarian philosophers such as Robert Nozick. They claim that freedom from constraint is necessarily good, and that all constraints imposed on one by others are necessary evils, except when they prevent even greater human constraints. The only basic right we all possess is the negative right to be free from the coercion of other...
Justice and Fairness Essay
...What is justice? This may seem like a simple question to answer but for many in today's society it is not. Individuals throughout society have their own distinctive explanation of justice. It is a word in which, to every person, has a different meaning. Although "Justice" has a vast list of meanings, it can somewhat be defined. Loosely, it can be defined as "the principal of fairness and the ideal of moral equity." In our world today they are many ways we have seen how justice work into our society, we as a society live by rules but we rules are in some ways meant to be broken. It is seen through many eyes around the world, many of the ways justice is portrayed in different ways because laws are different around the world. I have seen how justice is severed to those who decide to break the law and seen the worst when justice is not served fairly. Justice comes with its own rules it can uphold a fair sentence or see the nasty side of how people can portray the justice system. Many can see justice a virtue that can be used to protect them from the ambiguity of criminal works. Justice in society enforces individual's rights and to deny that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others". When the notion of justice becomes shared by all citizens, and equality...
Justice As Fairness Research Paper
...Justice as Fairness John Rawls's theory regarding justice is concluded with the idea of justice as fairness. Justice, according to Rawls, includes a conception of the knowledge that "all social goods are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored" (Princeton Readings, 697). His theory prioritizes three principles: freedom, equality, and the difference principle to solidify his claims. Rawls's attempt to reach an agreement on justice is based on a comparison to the social contract theory. In order to do this, a hypothetical situation is fabricated to establish common ground where rational persons agree to the terms of justice. Rawls adamantly claims that justice can only be determined if these rational persons are ignorant to the social inequalities that exist within society. Rawls reaches his conclusion by establishing justice as the principle foundation of society and institutions, by acknowledging different interpretations of justice, and by creating an equal initial status quo to determine the agreed upon principles of justice. The main purpose of this initial situation is to establish the basis at which all people concur on the conception of justice and make it applicable to society. Justice...
Essay on Justice as Fairness
...Harvard philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002 ) developed a conception of justice as fairness in his now classic work A Theory of Justice . Using elements of both Kantian and utilitarian philosophy, he has described a method for the moral evaluation of social and political institutions. Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new social contract for today's society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least to minimize them. Rawls suggests that you imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance . Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. You do know that in the "real world", however, there will be a wide variety in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will distinguish groups of people from each other. In this original position , behind the veil of ignorance, what will the rational choice be for fundamental principles of society? The only safe principles will be fair principles, for you do not know whether you would suffer or benefit from...
Rawl's Justice Is Fairness Essay
...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 naïve 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 Gedhun Choekyi Niyami, the eleventh Panchen 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...
Justice as Fairness Essay
...Justice As Fairness John Rawls made a significant difference in the way society views justice. He wanted people to keep in mind that his persuading arguments on the principles of justice come from the original hypothetical positions. The liberties he claims rational self interested people would include were things such as religion and the freedom of speech. He didn't like the idea of utilitarianism for the reason of it leaving the minorities "destitute" and without help". He also said that if we were to look at situations behind a "veil of ignorance", that shields us from knowing our advantages and disadvantages, then we would indefinitely choose equality. Social and economic inequalities are the second principle of justice, which, concerns social and economic equality. This only recognizes the theory of good and right in the difference between the principles and utilitarianism because it does not require an equal distribution of welth. The framework for morality, law, and politics is utilitarianism. Pleasure and preferences of satisfaction also gives reference to whatever yields the greatest utility and the greatest values with a list of objectives. It allows a choice of actions on the basis of consequences, and a view of consequences in means of the well being of others. The theory of rights yields the moral sensitivity to others and the greatest net utility. It also deals with negativity. The...
Rawls
...Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart) p. 83–88 Fabienne Peter Justice: Political Not Natural Abstract: Ken Binmore casts his naturalist theory of justice in opposition to theories of justice that claim authority on the grounds of some religious or moral doctrine. He thereby overlooks the possibility of a political conception of justice—a theory of justice based on the premise that there is an irreducible pluralism of metaphysical, epistemological, and moral doctrines. In my brief comment I shall argue that the naturalist theory of justice advocated by Binmore should be conceived of as belonging to one family of such doctrines, but not as overriding a political conception of justice. A political conception of justice, as famously put forward by John Rawls, rests on fundamental democratic values. The premise is that an irreducible pluralism of views about what justice requires and about what constitutes the relationship between individuals and the society they live in renders it impossible to base justice on any single comprehensive philosophical doctrine. In my brief comment I shall argue that the naturalist theory of justice advocated by Ken Binmore should be seen as belonging to one family of such doctrines. Naturalist theories are not written by nature, but are scholarly attempts to reflect on a select set of data...
Rawls Theory of Justice as Fairness Essay
...Take Home Exam Aman Birgi 100836261 PHIL 3340 Vida Panitch Part A: Political Liberalism John Rawls' Political Liberalism is an answer to the most common criticism of his Theory of Justice as Fairness where critics argued that it was just another conception of justice that is incompatible with other doctrines. It failed to clarify the concept of the good in a reasonable pluralist society by not distinguishing between an independent political theory and a comprehensive moral theory addressing the problem of Justice. This leads Rawls to refine his initial theory in Political Liberalism and ground it in a political structure rather than a metaphysical one. Sandel still has concerns about the way Rawls deals with this problem of neutrality vs. perfectionism, which stems from their varied views of liberalism and communitarianism. Rawls theory of justice talks about the problem of distributive justice, where the allotment of social primary goods in a society is arranged in a certain way, and opts for a method that focuses attaining equal liberty while giving those worse off a chance to flourish and using the resources of the better off to help the ones worse off. His work tries to put everyone on equal footing from the start, using the veil of ignorance, before deliberating on common principles that will be accepted by all. The...
3873 Words 11 Pages
Analysis of Justice as Fairness and Utilitarianism Essay
...Analysis	of	Justice	as	Fairness	and	Utilitarianism	1	There is a fine line between law and ethics, which mainly boils down to choice. There aren't written instructions for what is ethical because ethics can be interpreted in various ways and is often different from person to person; taking into account things like religion or upbringing or some other factor. Laws on the other hand, while they are not always cut and dry, they are set standards implemented by a government entity. Definitively, law is the application of rules and regulations within a given jurisdiction, while ethics is a moral principle that governs a person's behavior.1 The ethical component is much more challenging than legal decision because it is voluntary in nature. Due to the fact that ethics is such a vague concept, philosophers and scholars have pondered the best approach to make ethical decision and have come up with various ethical foundations that they believe to be the best approach to making ethical choices. This paper is a comparative...
A Corporations Social Responsibility to Stakeholders
The Naked Ape Essay
Agriculture Essay
Tourism Essay
Criminology Essay
Homosexuality Essay
Disability Essay
Graph of a function Essay