Summary (1) - Week 3 Rawls A theory of Justice Thoreau...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Week 3 . Rawls’ “A theory of Justice” Thoreau “Civil disobedience” Theory of social contract, but different from Rousseau’s (accept conditions of a particular society and enter/ leave). Principle of equality as the defining term of the association This principles will regulate agreements, specify the type of cooperation and the forms of government <- “justice as fairness” Those who engage in the cooperation must decide what is just and unjust, what constitutes their good to assign basic rights and duties In justice as fairness the original position of equality -> state of nature; it is purely hypothetical situation: all are similarly situated in the society, so the principles of justice are the result of fair agreement To establish justice as fairness people should choose the first principle of a conception of justice, which is to regulate and reform institutions and then to choose legislature to pass laws; justice should guarantee fairness to everyone in the society Parties in the situation are rational and mutually disinterested: individuals should make decisions based on their own concern, disinterested decision is made by someone who does not benefit from the outcome (?????) Which principles of justice to choose for the original position? Principle of equality is one, but it is incompatible with the principle of utility (the greatest good for the greatest number), because it ignores the rights of the least advantaged minority 2 principles: 1) the planners of the society must assign equal rights and duties to everyone; 2) social and economic inequalities (wealth inequality) are just only if they result in compensating benefits to least advantaged (?????); The most appropriate conception of this situation does lead to principles of justice contrary to utilitarianism and perfectionism “Transcedentialist – transcend materialism” It is not only appropriate, but imperative to disobey unjust laws “That government best which governs least” => opposes any government that is not totally just, totally moral and totally respectful of the individual, people Government is at best is a expedient: but most governments are usually inexpedient => it is mode of people to execute their will, but the government can be abused and perverted before people can act through it (ex. Mexican War) The American government- tradition, it is letting men one another alone; commerce, education, freedom are built due to the will of American people, not the government I ask for not at once no government, but at once a better government (let every man to command what is the best government to obtain it) The power in the hands of people, because majority permitted, and they continue to rule, not because they are right, but because majority is physically stronger. But a government in which majority rule cannot be just The only obligation I have right to assume is to do at any time what I think
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/01/2012 for the course ECON 131 taught by Professor Dfsfddsf during the Spring '11 term at Université Paris 12 - Val-de-Marne.

Page1 / 15

Summary (1) - Week 3 Rawls A theory of Justice Thoreau...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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