JOHN RAWLS ORIGINAL CITIZEN POSITION CITIZENS AND THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE
In the book ‘veil of ignorance’, John Rawls identifiers the main principle of the common and original citizens. The book narrates how an original citizen would form groups to discuss on the actiond they take to bold their own future, in a socialist society. John Rawls arguments post the ability of original citizens to focus on their future behind the comfort of their sets and the veil of ignorance of what the future unfolds like for them. John however in his arguments retaliates that the society members involved in the forecasting and working on their future do not necessarily know what the future position they would hold. (Audard, 2007, pg. 193) This paper identifies the two principles of original citizens as John Rawls identifies them in his ‘veil of ignorance’ arguments, while highlighting the John’s arguments on the original citizen position.
The Original Citizen Position Principles
According to Cohen (2008, pg. 16) John Rawls identifies the two principles of an original position of citizen as the follows;
Liberty principle, where each person spud be given the most extensive basic properties in the country possible without intruding upon the liberties of the other citizens
Differences principle, where there should be an opportunity for every citizen to climb the economic and the social ladder, while each economic, social and political inequality is are allowed in a way that the disadvantaged people in the society can well access the social goods without any alterations and complications.
As John Rawls critics, the primary social goods are very critical in every citizen survival and coherence in the society. These goods are important in liberation of every original citizen, since it’s in them that every citizen enjoys their basic rights. As john argues there is a choice to be mane between the liberty and other social goods. Liberty always takes the precedence. Liberty is the most crucial asset every citizen must possess, since it’s in liberty that’s all original citizens comply and execute any mandate they are assigned to, while work to accomplish their economic attributes. One can ever give up a single liberty for the essence of liberating others or improvising the society’s wealth, power, economic efficiency or even social welfare, no one in society can single handed give up own liberty to provide justice for all, it’s a collective liberation for all original citizens.
Rawls talks of the only aspect to make a citizen restrict liberty if for the sake of larger stake in the liberty, basically the greater liberty. When liberty interfered with each other, the basic liberty may be limited. For instance, ones liberty may be limited to the sake of other persons comfort. A transport network can be disrupted for the sake of a senior person in the government activity, hence delaying the comfort of any ordinary citizen. John retaliates that people having their liberties limited bust adhere and agree to the imposition thereof.
John Rawls speaks of different types of liberties the t may be inhibited in the general society of the original citizen positioning. These are;
Political liberty, theta the right to indulge oneself in political aspirations, to vote for a leader, and to vie for any position in the political arena.
Freedom to speech, without the restrictions of one’s views nor baring to specific area of controversy
Liberty to conscience, and freedom of thought that every citizen can accordingly contribute in any social arena any views they think are capable of improving the social, economic and the political status of the society.
Freedom of person as well as the liberty to hold the persona; property, without any intimidation to give up own property to others, or the government
Freedom form arbitrary arrest as well as the seizures.
Freeman (2007, pg. 9) asserts that the two principles are incorporated in the theory of justice in the John Rawls arguments, where upon stipulating his arguments he was able to devote the shattered bits and access to pieces of his life and work. The theory of justice and fairness if the complete position each citizen would rather consider having, it’s in a justified and fairness practised society that the original citizens can completely build their future while enhancing and improving the social economic factors thereof (Freeman, 2007, pg. 9).
According to Maffetone (2010, pg. 31) John Rawls in his arguments he presents the veil of ignorance the original position, where the citizens and the other parties building their career do not entirely know of any of the future society, nor the type of the society they will be entering. They nearly know the future culture, economic situation as well as the political climates (Maffetone, 2010, pg. 31). The convey of the veil of ignorance as the John Rawls argues is basically the inability of man to plan for the future while unknowingly planning for the futuristic events without any prior knowledge of how the future unfolds like.
Mandle (2009, pg. 12) chronicles that John Rawls argues that if any man knew he was rich he would find rational means to advance the existing principles so as to avoid the desired principles of the society tax system and the welfare groups, which are counted unjust. If the same man was poor, he would least likely propose a similar principle. Thus to prevent the future desired restrictions, the ordinary and original citizen would have a situation where everyone is deprived of this kind of information. John argues that a rational person will always be concerned about their future with many of the original citizens advancing their decisions in this kind of original positioning (Mandle, 2009, pg. 12). The original citizen would always agree to a proposal of the society which would see an equal distribution of social goods as well as the liberties.
Mandel et al (2013, pg. 71) ascertain that John Rawls argues that when the original position is at locked behind the veil of ignorance, all the parties in the social contract being drawn up, the parties will make sure that no matter what the mental, physical, economic, or else any social condition they wind up in the incoming society they will always get affair share or the assets and the needs they all need so as to make themselves a better life. John Rawls continually calls these the necessities of the primary social goods, which include the rights and liberties; the powers and opportunities; income and wealth and the condition of the self-respect (Mandel et al, 2013, pg. 71).
According to Mandle (2009, pg. 45), the original position expects the primary goods be distributed equally unless the unequal distribution of any of these if of a value addition to everyone. The principles of justice are therefore applies in the distribution of these social goods. The first principle majorly focuses on giving the original citizens the liberties they all deserve, since it’s the essence of the freedom and equality the society needs (Mandle, 2009, pg. 45). The second principle focuses each on the equal opportunities of each citizens to their ambition of climbing up the ecomania, social and political ladders.
The Original Position Argument
Mandel and David (2013, pg. 78) chronicles that the original position of the feature of the John Rawls argument mean the account of justice and fairness. The theory of justice is the key element in the original position arguments. It is designs to counter our logical thinking and perception of the ordinary and the fundamental principles of justice. The main distinguishing element of the original positioning of the citizens on the modern world according to John Rawls is the veil of ignorance. In this element, so as the human beings to be deprived of the importance of any judgement, the parties involved are deprived of all the knowledge of their interpersonal characteristics, social and historic circumstances (Mandel & David, 2013, pg. 78). John argues that any free individual would be free and willing to join the free and equal society while commit themselves in the principles of the free and equal persons.
According to Mandle (2009, pg. 60) John Rawls in his social justice system argumentation portrays the society as an entity which has several linkages as well as the loopholes which need to be fixed, for a better future. The concept of the free social goods as identified in the original positioning is meant to be free and equal to all citizens. As john urges, an original position is a situation where the there is a rational choice of the parties made rational and moral of subject. Rawls has a different understanding and definition of rationality, controversially from other scholars, in the essence of defining the original positioning (Mandle, 2009, pg. 60). In John Rawls practical rationality definition on the original positioning, the parties are described as the rational sense in form of the thin sense, effectively meaning to meet their obligations at the end while making consistency preferences.
According to Neill (2007, pg. 54) John Rawls attributes that the principles of social justice and the original positioning originate from the social contracts. Justice just as fairness assigns some certain level of primacy in the society. Predominantly, the social justice original positioning is basically meant to present the basic social status in the society. John Rawls concept of original positions is conceived in the ideas of justice and fairness. The original positioning as the philosopher ascribes is that the society should be free and fair to all (Neill, 2007, pg. 54). The social justice and the idea of original positioning is a hypothetical positioning that individuals can adopt in the moral reasoning in all the basic principles of social and political justice.
Sandel (2008, pg. 24) asserts that the distinguishing factor between John Rawls arguments and his predecessors is that rather than the ordinary judgement representation of one person, tit is spiritually conceived as the social and a general agreement by the ongoing societal members. Similarly to the Rousseau’s argument the point of the justice view id then represented as a socially general contract, or an agreement of general view social contract.
According to Haslett (2006, pg. 202) in the argument of the principles of justice, as John Rawls portrays, the conception hugely relies on the justice and fairness. The aim is to design the original is to describe the agreement and the situation meant to be fair to all the citizens, as well as the parties to hypothetically portray a social contrast. The two principles are indulged in that the ordinary citizen would endorse them to be applies in the general public. The original position of these two principles of justice is to showcase an aspect of fairness, while practically indulging in fair activities for the entire society (Haslett, 2006, pg. 202). Justice and fairness is all the ab original citizen would want, touching all aspects of the citizens, the rich and poor, and all the marginalised citizens.
Sandel (2008, pg. 24) chronicles that in the original position of citizen’s argument, John Rawls believed in the social contrast should be drawn up from the original position, and that every person in the society has to decide on the rules for the community behind the veil of ignorance. John in his argument reinstated that the society members in large extend tend to draw the rules of the society to always favour themselves, with different players in the society planning for their future (Sandel, 2008, pg. 24). The veil of ignorance sets in where a citizen is poised to ignore the needs and the obligation of the society to propose rules for the society, which only suits them.
Campbell (2014, pg. 129) ascertains that the veil of ignorance is basically the idea of blinding oneself from the terms of the reality while focusing one better social status for the individual involved. In the veil of ignorance one citizen completely proposes rules in the society where the rules will favour one group (where they belong), while at the same time oppressing the rest, which the proposer less cares about. The veil of ignorance foe instance may be compared to the idea of one opposing the idea of slavery while others are up for the idea. The society members are in this case split on which side they lie, either one is a slave or a slave trader, or slaves master (Campbell, 2014, pg. 129). In such cases there is a winner and a looser in each veil of ignorance circumstance involved.
As Rawls (2009, pg. 89) asserts, in the first liberty principle of original position, John Rawls believes that all the individuals must have basic rights, which he well defines as the liberties. These liberties are the rights of the human kind which are mostly quoted in most of the modern day country constitutions, and they include the right of movement, the freedom of speech, the political freedoms, the personal property acquisition freedoms, the arbitrary arrest freedom and many other rights which altogether are meant to induce the right of liberation to the citizens of a particular country (Rawls, 2009, pg. 89). All these liberties as john ascribes are compatible with other human being rights.
According to Hinton (2015, pg. 56), John Rawls argument in the second principle of original positioning, the differences principle, is that the society has a lot of inequalities which exist in the watt people are. These differences existing form of primary social goods as well as the economic distribution assets. John argues that these differences exist in the societies we live in and are the main reason why there is poverty in the society (Hinton, 2015, pg. 56). Some people have in possession of a lot of primary social goods at the expense of those who lack, commonly referred to as the poor.
Mandle (2010, pg. 68) asserts that John Rawls in the second principle argues that the society should be set up in away that the public resources, which he calls the primary social goods can equally be distributed to the pall the citizens in the society so as to reduce the resourceful disparities which are witnessed in many societies. Upon an equal distribution, the poor, who he terms as the poorly served portions in the society can well improve on their economic being, while completely making the society at o better one to live in, with minimal to no economic disparities (Mandle, 2010, pg. 68). The second principle is basically all about equity in resource distribution, the primary social good.
According to Mandle (2010, pg. 68), the two principles of original position as John Rawls argues all align to the justice and fairness radar. The first principle, the liberties provision to everyone on the society gives the people a bit of justice and fairness in every bit of right they need. Both rich and the poor should be given the chancre to express themselves, while also offering them similar and equal platform to work in the society, fairness sets in when everyone in the society is given the same rights to the other, and the society is ten justified. Fairness similarly sets in the second principle where there is uniform, and equal primary resources distribution in the society (Mandle, 2010, pg. 68). With this, there is a justified way to distribute the resources in the society and every player gets their deserved share, where the equity plays along as opposed to equality. Primary social gods arte the key to the societal improvement and development, thus, an equity in their distribution bring about justice and fairness,
Original position is the means in which the society members find themselves planning for their future, amid their lack of knowledge in the way the future unfolds like. John Rawls, a philosopher adds an argument analysis of the whole idea of original positioning, stating that individuals plan for their future in the original position in the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance is when an individual completely ignores what the rest of the society. There are two principle so the original positioning, the liberties principles and the differences principle. The liberties principle bring a bit of rights and freedom to all the citizens, to allow them participate freely in the society. The differences principle talks of the differences in primary social goods, which should be made equal to all the players in the society to acquire them.
Audard, Catherine, 2007, John Rawls (Philosophy Now), McGill-Queens University Press. Page 193
Campbell, C. (2014). Persons, identity, and political theory: a defense of Rawlsian political identity. Dordrecht: Springer. Page 129
Cohen, G. A., 2008, Rescuing Justice and Equality, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Page 16
Freeman, Samuel (ed.), 2007. The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page 9
Haslett, D. (2006). Equal consideration: a theory of moral justification. Newark London Cranbury, NJ: University of Delaware Press Associated University Presses. Page 202
Hinton, T. (2015). The original position. Cambridge, United Kingdom New York: Cambridge University Press. Page 56
Maffetone, Sebastiano, 2010, Rawls: An Introduction, Cambridge UK: Polity. Page 31
Mandel, Jon, and David Reidy (eds.), 2013, A Companion to Rawls, Oxford: Blackwell. Page 71
Mandel, Jon, and David Reidy (eds.), 2013, A Companion to Rawls, Oxford: Blackwell. Page 78
Mandel, Jon, and David Reidy (eds.), 2013, A Companion to Rawls, Oxford: Blackwell. Page 7
Mandel, Jon, and David Reidy (eds.), 2013, A Companion to Rawls, Oxford: Blackwell. Page 78
Mandle, Jon, 2009, Rawls’s A Theory of Justice: An Introduction, Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Page 60
Mandle, Jon, 2009, An Introduction to justice and fairness, Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Page 45
Mandle, Jon, 2010, Rawls’s original position. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Page 68
Mandle, Jon, 2009, Rawls’s A Theory of Justice: An Introduction, Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Page 12
Neill, S. (2007). Impartiality in context: grounding justice in a pluralist world. Albany: State University of New York Press. Page 54
Rawls, J. (2009). A theory of justice. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Pahe 89
Sandel, M. (2008). Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge, UK New York: Cambridge University Press. Page 24