Analyze Whether The Same Principles Of Distributive Justice Apply Globally?

Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” lays out a strong argument on why we are morally obligated to help those in need if we can. He first lays down a platform by saying that suffering and dying from starvation is bad, which most reasonable people would agree with. He builds on this by saying that if we can prevent something bad without causing any harm, then we are morally obligated to do it. This argument, much like the first, is one that would be widely accepted since most people wouldn’t want something bad to occur if they can prevent it.

Rawls feels that the difference principle “permits income inequalities as just only if incentives and effort of the people who are at an advantage ultimately help the people who are at a disadvantaged (Sandel 2010, p.158). Therefore applying this principle to the wealthy resort owner is in line with Rawls difference principle because it doesn’t matter what Chuck Fowler makes in wealth, what matters is according to Rawls, “the basic structure of society” (Sandel 2010, p.152). Chuck Fowler in his original position, benefits the citizens that are not as well off as him. Setting aside Chuck Fowler’s income, the difference principle exerts his rights and duties, income and wealth, power and opportunity and permits that inequality as long as it is allocated to the

He argues that people especially those living an affluent lifestyle need to alter their entire perception of morality. He puts forward the assumption he relies on in order to continue with his argument (automatically considering that assumption to be true): death and suffering due to the lack of basic necessities of life are bad. Singer then states the principle which is if we can prevent terrible occurrences without sacrificing something of equal moral significance then we should go ahead and do so; this principle plays a major role in his argument. Next, he puts forward a more moderate version of the principle by replacing equal moral significance with anything of moral significance. The nature of the principle, according to Singer, is contentious, for if applied has the potential to change everything about our values and lives.

Rawls’ idea of justice as fairness, which he presented in his book, “A Theory of Justice,” emphasizes the importance of equal opportunities and equal distribution of wealth and resources in society. This idea resonates with me because, as someone who values fairness and equality, I believe that everyone should have the same chance to succeed and live a fulfilling life. Rawls’ work has taught me to be more aware of societal inequalities and to work towards creating a fairer and more just

One way of looking at this pond case is the self-referential altruism, on this view; your moral obligation to help a person varies directly with the degree of closeness of your social relationship or social connections to that person. You only feel moral obligations to close people, e.g. family members, friends, neighbors… We have different levels of moral responsibility to different people. Among humans, we owe least of all to distant needy strangers, with whom that person has no social relationship at all. Therefore you don’t have a significant amount of moral obligations to the staving children in the other parts of the world; there is no social relationship between you and that child.

The police jumped into action and treated this case with urgency. The type of injustice that this conflict displayed was distributive injustice. Distributive injustice “is concerned with the criteria that lead you to feel you received a fair outcome” (Deutsch, 2007, p. 44). I believe in most cases involving black people the news make the police out to be bad guys. The most recent cases with the killing of African American males will make you think that the police don’t care about Blacks.

Rawls was not happy whit the original arguments about what makes a social institution just. The utilitariam argument says that societies should pursue the greatest good for the greatest number. This argument has many problems, excpecially that it seems to be consistant with the belief of majorities over minorities. The institution argument holds that human intuit what is wright or wrong by some innate moral sense. Rawls attempts to provide a good account of social justice through the social contract approach.

While pointing out that it is much easier to ignore an appeal for money to help those you’ll never meet than to consign a child to death, Singer uses his utilitarian philosophy to deflect the argument, stating that “if the upshot of the American’s failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies… then it is, in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers.” This argument, however, can only be made while using false dilemmas. Singer also addresses a large criticism of his work, that one can’t decide moral issues by taking opinion polls. The argument to this reiterates how the audience would feel being in these situations. This argument is poor as it does not address how the entire article is based on how everyone feels about this particular subject.

Rather, Singer’s weaker version is more plausible, that one should take necessary action where we are able to prevent bad states of affairs without sacrificing morally significant (Singer, 1972). It is clear then that moral autonomy to pursue one’s own interests is something that can constitute moral significance. An individual is morally free not to devote themselves full time to prevent famine. It is important to make a distinction between the freedom to pursue one’s own interests and the freedom of wasting resources on excessive luxuries. Singer concedes there is no justification for the purchasing of stylish new clothes as any benefit to this purchase would be sparingly little compares to the benefit it would make for the poor in donating that money (Singer, 1972).

In our society, people are either born rich and powerful, having the rights and opportunities that those who are born into lower-class would not have. So why should we live in a government system where we allow these inequities to happen? In Justice, Michael J. Sandel discusses John Rawls’ arguments over defining a just society. Rawls believes that “we should reject the contention that the ordering of institution is always defective because the distribution of natural talents and the contingencies of social circumstance are unjust, and this injustice must inevitably carry over to human arrangements. Occasionally this reflection is offered as an excuse for ignoring injustice, as if refusal to acquiesce in injustice is on par with being unable to accept death.

Distribution is one the most controversial matter in Political Philosophy as far as Social Justice is concerned. In this essay, I will discuss about the capability approach as the plausible factor to consider when devising a distribution scheme. The capability approach takes a comprehensive or holistic approach which considers the abilities, functionings, opportunities, the being of an individual and other factors as well. The capability approach is a theoretical framework that involves two central normative claims that the freedom to attain well-being is of fundamental moral importance; and it needs to be understood in terms of people's capabilities, that is, their actual opportunities to do and be what they value and have reason to sustain

Political theorists, whether they are realists, or liberalists, over the centuries, have come into conflict over what they believe to be the utmost important task of the state. Hobbes believes the most important task of the state is to ensure law and order, rooting his argument in the idea of a sovereign ruler. On the other hand, Rawls, a modern theorist, firmly believes that a state should focus on realising justice within their society. While a utopian society cannot be achieved by either of these theories, I will highlight why Rawls was right in his assumption that the main focus of a state should be to ensure justice for all within their nation, through analysing and comparing the conflicting arguments of Hobbes and Rawls.

J RAWLS, The Laws of Peoples-with the Idea of Public Reason Revisited, Harvard University Press: USA, 1999. John Rawls was an influential political philosopher and his publications are widely read. One of which is the Law of Peoples published in 1993 which is the subject of my study. In the Law of Peoples Rawls concerns of the general principles whereby one can uphold and be accept by the liberal people as well as the non-liberal society. “This principle is a standard for which can be useful in regulating the behavior of the citizens towards one and other.”

In Rawls’ paper, “Two Concepts of Rules”, he sheds light on fact that a distinction between justifying a practice and actions that fall under said practice, must be made. This distinction, according to Rawls is crucial in the debate between Utilitarianism and Retributivism, more specifically in defending the Utilitarian view against common criticisms, which will be addressed further in this essay. This essay will be examining the troubling moral question that Rawls addresses; The subject of punishment, in the sense of attaching legal penalties to the violation of legal rules. Rawls acknowledges that most people hold the view that punishing, in broad terms, is an acceptable institution. However, there are difficulties involved with accepting

John Rawls believed that if certain individuals had natural talents, they did not always deserve the benefits that came with having these abilities. Instead, Rawls proposed, these inherent advantages should be used to benefit others. Although Rawls makes an excellent argument on why this should be the case, not all philosophers agreed with his reasoning, especially Robert Nozick. Nozick believed in distributing benefits in a fair manner in accordance with the Entitlement Theory, which has three subsections: Just Acquisition, Just Transfer and Just Rectification.