Justice as Fairness - John Rawls (Essay Sample)

Authors Name:
Tutor’s Name:
Course Code and Title
Institutional Affiliation:
Date Submitted:
Justice as Fairness - John Rawls
The concepts of justice and fairness are at times considered to have the same meaning. There is a great benefit to distinguish two aspects or even to say that one of them is fundamental than the other. In societies, there will be great differences from each other because of not having or failing to embrace this notion. In the range, of cases that they apply justice with the emphasis that societies give to the issues of justice and fairness in comparison with other moral concepts. A society of company understanding of this concept of justice is indispensably necessary when such variations and their reasons for variations are understood with a common knowledge. There is no single study on the development of moral ideologies in the differences on moral concepts that must depend on. The development of this impression is a commonly mistaken concept with regard to justice because; in the life and existence of each society, there must be some relations (Rawls 179). The relations help the parties to consider being related or circumstanced the way the concept of justice as a mode fairness requires. In this case, only proper delivery of justice creates a way of ensuring fairness in a society. I tend to concur with Rawls’ view since justice proofs to be the main approach and ordeal which creates the sense of fairness in a social or even communal setup. It is the only probable way to deliver and foster sound relations within the society. This help further in fostering morals.
Rawl gives his argument on justice as a way of ensuring fairness by creating thorough conception of justice based on fundamental principles. He uses the notion of fairness and circumstances as the ideal framework to put across a new perception of justice. Justice is the only consideration that is used as an outstanding virtue of social institutions commonly referred to as practices by Rawl. The principle of the virtue of justice is thus are regarded to formulate the basis for restrictions on how certain practices may define positions in offices. Justice is indeed viewed as an indispensable virtue of certain actions of individuals who always do not take up. The meanings of the concept of justice vary according to its subjects and its application in persons, practices and actions. The meanings are not identical though they are interconnected. Rawl gives his view that justice is used in different spheres whether it is individuals or their actions and creates universality (Rawls 167). This is why he puts to be a way of fairness. The application of justice in practices is explored by Rawl, and this forms the basis of his sense of argument. This principle is mainly understood with regard to the customary sense that it represents among many other virtues within social institutions. He delinked the use of justice from the understanding of inclusiveness of a vision of a good society. He addressed justice to be an attribute that strive a proper balance between competing interests. Inequalities or equalities may at times exist but depends on the attention. Rawl gives the conception of justice that is developed from two principles. In the first case, everyone participating in an undertaking or is affected by it have the right to equal liberty for all. It is also evident that inequality is arbitrary unless they strive to the benefit of everyone and offices attached are accessible to all. In these principles, Rawl express justice as a component of three factors that are equality, liberty and rewards for the services which contributes to common good (Brighouse 76).
Rawl gives the term person being construed in various ways depending on the circumstances. The principle expresses the analogous conception, but the application is linked to the structure of practices (Freeman 81). The legal systems and practices build some presumption that may affect the original and equal liberty of individuals involved. He gives how the presumptions may be rebutted in the other principle. He argues that justice requires an equal form of liberty. The dilemma is created where the possibility of extensive liberty is possible for all the people with no loss or conflict. This would be irrational in settling for less liberty though may render the human rights incompatible to the system of justice. In essence, no serious distortion of this concept of justice is more likely to follow suit from including in it the main concept of the greatest equal liberty in the society. With the benefit of these provisions, individuals may derive them from the priori principles of reason that Rawl argues to be known through intuition. He further claims that there might be well established practices in the society with mutual, self interests and the prospect of self advantage. In this case, thus, the term ‘person’ or persons are mutually interested within the liberty. If also assumed that the persons have similar interests and needs, or even needs and interests in many ways complementary where fruitful cooperation among them is possible (Rawls 182). This occurs supposedly that they are adequately equal in ability and power in guaranteeing this in a normal circumstance, and none will be able to dominate the others.
There are key objections to this idea where one must give up their conceptions of justice being an executive decision together and have reference to the notion of justice as a way of fairness. Participants in common practices are regarded to have an equal and original liberty where their common practices are considered unjust unless they accompany with the principles which persons circumscribed and related could acknowledge before one another freely, and this could accept as fair (Schmidtz 117). However, the idea of accepting the principles of justice as moral aspects gives the implication in that individuals act on it as a future investment, and a return is expected. This then points out that every individual insist on an advantage to himself or herself also on common advantage. This objection clarifies the fact that none of the individual is willing to sacrifice their ordeals for others, but it is a key way to ensure fairness if adhered to (Rawls 176).
Another objection arises where the remarks by Rawl are not used as proof that individuals circumstanced and conceived could settle on the two principles. It only attempts to show that the principles would have such backgrounds, which is viewed as these principles that rational and mutually self...