Justice - Adam Reed Intro To Philosophy Paper#3 When...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Adam Reed Intro. To Philosophy Paper #3 When viewing justice in society there are two ways of viewing it. First there is the utilitarian view of justice. This involves sacrifice of personal freedoms and rights for the good of the whole. Then there is the Kantian or “end-based” view on justice which invokes personal freedoms as a means to an end, a positive end. Rawls expresses the ideas of the utilitarian while Nozick takes a more Kantian view on justice. Rawls believes that people enter into a social contract when living in a society. He believes that people must look out for one-another even at the risk of their own personal freedoms. Similar to an idealistic parent-child relationship. Where the parents must sometimes sacrifice what they want to do for their children. This is a very utilitarian view on justice. That we must look out for the good of the whole rather than the good of the individual. Rawls’ view to some might seem communistic. This view would be aroused by his view that rules must be made for the group by the group. He goes on to say that rules should not be made with any personal ideals involved. His focus is what will make the group happy and what will keep peace within the group. The happiness of the group is more important than the happiness of the individual. Inequalities is one area where Rawls’ deviates from utilitarianism. He believes that society does not have any problem with inequalities they have a problem with the rewards that result from those inequalities. Rawls’ believes that people need to realize the relationship between burden and reward. That when people have greater burdens the rewards are much greater.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Nozick takes a more end-based view towards justice. He believes that you cannot have equality because everyone is so different. People act towards selfish desires and that is important because you must retain some sense of self. He goes on to say that without personal desires being met, ultimately everyone forfeits and the entire group is unhappy. He also believes that as long as everyone gets what they are entitled to then the group
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This essay was uploaded on 04/18/2008 for the course PHIL T122 taught by Professor Berendzen during the Fall '05 term at Loyola New Orleans.

Page1 / 5

Justice - Adam Reed Intro To Philosophy Paper#3 When...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online