| Papers [1-16] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "JOHN RAWLS THEORY JUSTICE": |
|
|
John Rawls? ?A Theory of Justice?, 2002.
This paper discusses John Rawls' ?A Theory of Justice?, which presents a theory of justice that supports the liberal-democratic viewpoint of the rights and freedoms of individuals in society.
1,710 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 5 sources, APA, AU$ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper states that the John Rawls' theory declares that no inborn benefits of political authority, substance riches or natural capability should irreversibly or overpoweringly establish life chances and that these morally subjective issues should not establish the value of political liberties to moral persons. The author points out that Rawls and numerous other moderate philosophers employed this theory as a weapon with which to impose warfare on the English nobility by which a minority was repressing monetarily and socially a majority. The author believes that, in the twentieth century, John Rawls's emphasis on impartiality has lured extra observations and stimulated extended concentration than any other exertion in ethical or opinionated philosophy.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Origin of the Theory and the State of the Justice System at that Time
Justification
Constructivism
Utilitarianism
Intuitionism
Contrast with Kant?s Theory
Impact of the Theory; Now and Then
From the Paper
"Setting the juncture for his conjecture of justice Rawls aims at the departure of utilitarianism and labels it a "distribution problem". As stated by Rawls, utilitarianism grows erroneous if it disappoints to disburse concentration to how that welfare is circulated; there is nothing incorrect, however, with the utilitarian model of publicizing the common interests. The contentment of others cannot make up for the immense anguishes by a few. This is a sharing difficulty as when the pain is circulated in one location and the pleasure is circulated everyplace else, delight disappoints to recompense for the pain i.e. "one man's fortune is another man's gain". Or else if one endures at the present for some afterward reward, then the victim is satisfied later, than likewise the beneficiary of the anguish is afterward the receiver of the pleasure, equalizes it. Equally, it is unjust to compel one to compensate for one?s sins but just if one compensates for himself. Utilitarians can't eliminate a definite type of discriminatory agreement for the reason that the reimbursements and afflictions are not disseminated reasonably by being oblivious to how that pleasure is scattered and in its place considering the figure of bliss. It is vital to observe that it is the injustice that plights Rawls not the inequality of the agreement. Such an unjust conclusion cannot survive in any moral organization. Therefore, it is no chance that considering this Rawls opts to name his conjecture "Justice as Fairness"."
| |
|
Distributive Justice: John Rawls and Social Injustice Issues, 2006.
A discussion of John Rawls theory of justice and how it can be applied to the issues and problems of the homeless.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 5 sources, AU$ 102.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Determining how well-suited distributive justice theories are as frameworks for formulating and/or defending the justice-related grievances and aspirations of homeless people can best be achieved by focusing on a particular theory. Narrowing the focus primarily to the work of a specific distributive justice theorist, such as John Rawls, provides a concise and clearly defined framework which can then be systematically applied to homelessness issues. This paper examines the applicability of Rawls' theory in the context of addressing the grievances and aspirations of homeless people.
| |
|
Theories of Justice, 2006.
Compares the theories of John Rawls and Robert Nozick on the issue of justice.
793 words (approx. 3.2 pages), 5 sources, MLA, AU$ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Justice has been explained by different theorists in different terms. The paper examines the theories of John Rawls and Robert Nozick which differ in key ways. It points out however, that both theories are normative, offering a model of what they each believe justice should be.
From the Paper
"The major institutions of society to which Rawls refers are pervasive and have profound effects on behavior and the distribution of benefits. These institutions embody deep-seated inequalities that may be inevitable in the basic structure of any society, and any principles of justice must apply to these inequalities (Rawls, A Theory of Justice 7)."
| |
|
John Rawls: Political Philosopher, 2005.
This paper compares the writings of political philosopher John Rawls with the writings of Robert Nozick and Friedrich Nietzsche.
1,570 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 3 sources, MLA, AU$ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that John Rawls' thinks of his justice principles as fairness which ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance. The author points out that Robert Nozick is saying, if you take a society where some are poor and some wealthy, and spread the wealth around equally - as Rawls suggests must be done to have "justice" and "fairness" in a society - you're basically taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The paper relates that justice isn't necessarily about "fairness", in Nietzsche's world; it's in part about "reactive feelings" to an injustice.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Rawls: About Justice
Robert Nozick's Philosophical Positions vis-a-vis John Rawls Suggesting Shortcomings in Rawls' Theories
Nietzsche's View of Justice Collides with Rawls
From the Paper
"In going to great lengths to explain justice, he adds that he is not saying the concepts of justice and fairness are identical. Rather, he is alluding to the "traditional theory of the social contract," which is that in real, pure, un-corrupted fairness, "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status." Also, no one knows his "fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like." The principles of justice, in his hypothetical description, are agreed to "in an initial situation that is fair." The parties in this concept of understanding justice are "rational and mutually disinterested" - and they are not "taking an interest in one another's interests," he writes. He further sets up his argument by suggesting that those persons in his initial situation would choose two "rather different principles." "
| |
|
Criminal Justice and Restorative Justice, 2008.
An examination of the literature related to restorative justice in the criminal justice system from the years 1996 to 2006.
985 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 4 sources, APA, AU$ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the content of peer reviewed articles published within a ten-year period, from 1996 to 2006. It focuses on the criminal justice system and its experiences with restorative justice. The paper looks at the values that researchers have that drive investigation during any given period, as seen in the examined articles. The paper also identifies gaps and trends in research during the specified period.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Purpose
Hypothesis
Strengths/Weaknesses
Methods
Data Collections
Results
Method
Variables - Independent and Dependent
Statistical Analysis/Means/Mode/Median
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Given the evidence provided from this study the researcher finds the following true. Hypothesis (1) - proven true, given restorative justices seems to be the more commonly used tool for rehabilitating criminals in the population specified. Other data collected from the content analysis however suggests hypotheses (2), suggesting less relapse is likely among participants engaged in this form of justice remains questionable. Further research is needed to establish or refute this hypothesis, given changing trends in criminal justice and criminal behaviors in the future. Overall, the researcher argues despite some comments to the contrary, restorative justice, which aims to involve victims in the rehabilitation process and encourages convicted criminals at a young age to rehabilitate and participate in their community, remains an effective form of justice."
| |
|
Justice Delayed, Justice Denied, 2008.
An analysis and comparison of Constance Curry's "Silver Rights" and Tim Tyson's "Blood Done Sign My Name".
866 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 8 sources, APA, AU$ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper compares Constance Curry's book "Silver Rights" to Tim Tyson's book "Blood Done Sign My Name". The paper relates that Curry's work is a tale about the ability of the human spirit to overcome and triumph negative forces of racism and mistrust, whereas Tyson's work, in contrast, is about how South Carolinian blacks, long socially and legally oppressed, eventually used street violence to ensure that the violence done unto them was punished.
From the Paper
"Silver Rights specifically grapples with the complicity of the state's legal system in African-American disenfranchisement. When Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 it prohibited "discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance" and its implications for student education were profound ("Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 2007, U.S. Department of Justice Website). In an attempt to circumvent the strictures of the federal law, the state government of Mississippi passed a "Freedom of Choice" law."
| |
|
Rawls, Nozick and Distributive Justice, 2007.
A discussion on whether the liberal state should be concerned with the 'losers' in a capitalist economy.
1,538 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 8 sources, MLA, AU$ 73.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is a comparison between the political theories of John Rawls and Robert Nozick and their opinions on distributive justice. Very emotive examples are utilised throughout this paper and the welfare state and the legitimacy of such a system is discussed. The Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' to legitimise the welfare state is described and the counter arguments of Nozick are reviewed. Finally, there is also a mention of morality and philanthropy.
From the Paper
"Rawls's theory is based upon the view that there should be an equal distribution of the wealth of society among all individuals, where "everyone should have an equal share" (Clayton et al, 2002, p165). He believes that all individuals have an equal claim to these benefits and that individuals should not be "advantaged or disadvantaged by natural future or social circumstances" (John Rawls, 1971, p18) in their lives which they have no direct control over, such as family, social class, and physical and mental attributes. His view is that men are born into different positions within society and so they have different expectations of life determined, in part by the political system, as well as by economic and social circumstances and in this way the institutions of society "favour certain starting places over others" (Ibid, 1971, p7). "
| |
|
The Nature Of Justice, 2007.
Compares ancient philosopher Marcus Tullus Cicero's philosophy on the nature of justice with that of modern philosophers such as John Rawls and Martha Nussbamu
1,174 words (approx. 4.7 pages), 3 sources, MLA, AU$ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares ancient Roman politician and philosopher Marcus Tullus Cicero's philosophy on the nature of justice with that of modern philosophers, John Rawls and Martha Nussbaum. The paper looks at Rawls' and Nussbaum's theories of justice and expands upon their social contract theory to examine how to better preserve justice in a modern nation, balance the rights of the majority and the minority and create a more economically balanced society.
From the Paper
"Nussbaum's fundamentally distinct nature as a thinker is in her stress on women as a category. Even in traditional societies, they cannot be viewed as fundamentally distinct from men. Individual women can choose to live in a traditional manner but this does not mean that the state can justify limiting gender equality because the majority of women might wish to do so. Thus, again like Rawls, she believes that strict utilitarianism or democracy is not feasible. But Nussbaum does not limit her discussion redistributing the economic resources of the nation like Rawls; she also focuses on the nation's political resources or human rights."
| |
|
John Stuart Mill and Jean-Jacques Rousseau On Justice, 1999.
Examines and compares the views on the relationship between individual and state, liberty, nature, property and inequality.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, AU$ 68.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
"Justice is a concept we believe we understand even if we have difficulty putting the concept into words. Justice is defined by the relationship that exists between the individual and the state.
From the Paper
"Justice is a concept we believe we understand even if we have difficulty putting the concept into words. Justice is defined by the relationship that exists between the individual and the state. Justice means that the state treats every person equally and seeks to resolve disputes on the basis of the facts and compared to objective criteria rather than a subjective determination. Justice in the broadest sense is fairness. Justice cannot assure that every dispute comes out "correctly" or that no mistakes are made, but it should be such as to assure that the process by which decisions are made and goods allocated is fair and produces an acceptable result in the aggregate, even if an individual case justice might fail. Justice occurs when the distribution of political power and economic opportunity is as uniform as possible or when the social and political system is such ..."
| |
|
?Justice as Fairness", 2002.
A review of John Rawls' thesis ?Justice as Fairness: A Restatement?.
866 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 0 sources, AU$ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how John Rawls reworks his theses contained in his previous works with "Justice as Fairness: A Restatement". It looks at how Rawls? political philosophy is a modern formulation, presupposing a democratic foundation, which seeks to define justice as a purely political concept and how he attempts to divest the concept of justice as fairness from its moral underpinnings. It analyzes how Rawls reformulates the basic theories contained within his former works in order to distinguish the political from the moral or philosophical spheres.
From the Paper
"Among Rawls? fundamental ideas is the concept of the basic structure upon which a democratic society is based. The basic structure is a cooperative, collective underpinning of a democratic society. As such, it is informed and rational, applicable to all citizens. Citizens of a just society are both free and equal, not judged on the basis of their gender, ethnicity, race, history, or economic class. The key to a fair, just, cooperative society is basically a social contract. This contract, like any other contract, is a mutual agreement between parties. Its aim is the common good, regardless of any differences or dissention between parties. Because pluralism is an inescapable and welcome facet of a democratic society, disagreement and dissention are inevitable."
| |
|
John Dewey and John Locke On Experience, 1999.
Compares their views on nature and the meaning of human experience. Discusses ideas, perception, knowledge, scientific inquiry and mind-body relationship.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, AU$ 68.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Differing notions of experience divide philosophers John Dewey and John Locke. The views of both have meaning in terms of such human endeavors as scientific inquiry and relate to scientific meaning.
Locke's view of experience sees the world as preexisting and the mind as learning from experience. Locke believes that the mind at birth is a tabula rasa, a blank slate, and it is only through experience that knowledge is gained. Any knowledge possessed by the individual would be knowledge gained through experience. In the beginning, however, the individual has no experience. In the Garden of Eden, when Eve has experience of reaching for the extended red apple, it is a new one, the outcome of which will teach her a lesson she could not have gained otherwise. She has been told not to perform this action, and yet ..."
| |
|
John Cheever and John Updike, 1994.
A description and comparison of their short stories including narration, style and views on American society.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"John Cheever and John Updike have both been cited as writers of American suburbia, and indeed they do delve into that area of American life in their works. The writers are very different in their style, tone, and the subject matter they tackle, however, and should not be mistaken for one another by any careful reader. They come from different generations as well, and yet Cheever's suburbia, holds the promise of a new form of the American dream, but, is treated by the author as the thing that destroys it. Updike's suburbia is treated more as a simple fact of modern life, although his characters find it difficult living up to the expectations of suburban life. An examination of several stories by each writer can show some of the ways each approaches their subject matter, their stylistic concerns, and their differences as writers."
| |
|
"Justice as Fairness: A Restatement", 2002.
A review of the book "Justice as Fairness: A Restatement" by John Rawls on ethical pluralism.
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 1 source, AU$ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will examine the book "Justice as Fairness: A Restatement" by John Rawls, and seek to understand his ethical pluralism. By analyzing the points made in the book, we can identify how Rawls describes this phenomenon.
| |
|
Justice Outside the Vacuum, 2005.
Shows the failure of political theorists to find a definition of "and justice for all."
2,228 words (approx. 8.9 pages), 8 sources, MLA, AU$ 100.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines a variety of authors, from Plato to John Rawls and looks at why the varied theories of justice presented by these philosophers have not arrived at a single answer to the question "What is Justice?". Over the course of hundreds of years, no system of justice has addressed the fundamental divide between theory and reality- what roles do human nature and society play when determining what a just society is? The author asserts that these questions must be answered in order to describe a system of ultimate reality. The metaphor of Schroedinger's Cat is used, in addition to 8 well known authors - John Rawls, Plato, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Donne, John Stuart Mill, Henry David Thoreau, James Madison and George Clinton.
From the Paper
"From the earliest recorded writings on philosophy, the concept of justice has been a source of heated debate. The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates offers the theory "... that justice is the excellence of the soul, and injustice the defect of the soul" (Plato). The modern philosopher John Rawls envisioned a system of "justice as fairness", in which the principles of justice are "the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association" (199). In the hundreds of years that separate the two, many more theories have been discussed. Each philosopher adds to the concept his idea of where justice might come from, and how society might endeavor to become just. Yet in those thousands of years, no single thinker has described a working model for a society that is perfectly just."
| |
|
Nozick's Entitlement Theory, 2008.
Looks at the issue of distributive justice and evaluates Robert Nozick's entitlement theory.
2,630 words (approx. 10.5 pages), 9 sources, APA, AU$ 114.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the meaning of the concept of distributive justice, which guarantees that everyone is supplied with a certain level of material means, can be interpreted based on different philosophies. The author examines Robert Nozick's libertarian three-part entitlement theory and then compares with John Rawls' difference principle. The paper concludes by demonstrating why Nozick's theory fails the test of moral justification.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Distributive Justice
Literature Review
Robert Nozick
Comparing Nozick with Rawls
Nozick / Libertarianism
Nozick / Libertarianism II
Kantians
John Locke
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Like John Locke, Nozick basically believed that an individual has the right to: one, own what he makes; and two, to "appropriate [i.e., take] anything not already owned" with the proviso that in appropriating [taking possession of] the item that person leaves enough for others and certainly leaves them "no worse off" for having appropriated the item. And further, Nozick wrote that in appropriating the item (distributive justice in action) that act does not leave the other person in a lesser position in terms of being able to appropriate something he or she desires."
| |
|
Is Liberalism the Best of All Possible Worlds?, 2002.
An examination of John Rawls' Liberal Theory.
3,219 words (approx. 12.9 pages), 3 sources, MLA, AU$ 133.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the conception of justice that liberalism is based on is that all social primary goods -- liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect -- are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored. The writer shows how Rawls breaks this general conception down into two principles: The first principle states that everyone has equal rights and everyone should be able to enjoy these rights as much as possible, without infringing on anyone else's rights. The second principle, called the difference principle, states that inequality should have two restrictions- inequalities have to be beneficial to the least advantaged of society, and inequalities are acceptable only if there is equal opportunity to achieve a higher status. This paper is a critical examination of Liberal Political theory, set forth by Rawls. The paper examines criticism voiced by libertarians, communitarians, and feminists.
From the Paper
"The search for the best of all possible worlds is extremely complicated. How can we decide what is the best world? What features would that world have, and why? Do these features concur with our intuitions about what's right? Are certain standards of equality and justice met? Would most people thrive in this world? Is our view on what is best impartial? In Steve Lukes' novel, Professor Caritat attempts to attain an impartial view of the world by asking, in which world would anyone be happy? In order to answer the question, Caritat tries to imagine the best possible world for an unborn embryo. This hypothetical embryo has no idea of its class, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, health, gender, life prospects, etc. Therefore, the embryo has no idea what sort of position it will occupy in society once it is born. Because the embryo has no identity, Caritat must examine every sector of society to see how everyone is treated, and to what extent everyone is allowed to live a good life. Using this criterion, Caritat concludes that none of the worlds that he visits are the ideal place for the embryo. He describes what he believes to be the best of all possible worlds and that description sounds a lot like a world based on liberal ideals. In this world people have the freedom to choose from all types of lifestyles worth living. Besides rule of law, civil peace and order, this society ensures that everyone has access to basic resources, and that the least advantaged are as well off as possible."
|
|
|
