Rawls’ two principles of justice--论文代写范文精选

51Due论文代写网精选essay代写范文：“Rawls’ two principles of justice” 利用简单的对正义的理论认识,它提供了激励两个原则，这有助于提供反驳和突出的弱点。在这篇社会essay代写范文中，讲述的是关于正义的两个原则，在正义的理论,罗尔斯的社会民主原则提供了一个理论依据,正义的原则是普遍有效的和可实现的。正义是通过发展平等自由的原则,确保差异和机会平等的原则。目的是说服自由和理性的人采取这两个原则。后者主要是由原来的位置进行替换。根据罗尔斯,初始状态不应该是一个现实的情况。下面的essay代写范文将进行详述。

Abstract 
The present paper aims in a first stage, to exploit succinctly the cardinal argument – the contract argument - acquainted in “A Theory of Justice”, which provides incentives for the two principles’ general adoption. In a second stage, a discussion appraising the feasibility of these two principles and their subsequent empirical adoption will be dealt with. This contributes to the provision of counter-arguments and the highlighting of weaknesses.

Introduction 
In “A Theory of Justice”, Rawls offers a theoretical justification of social democratic principles of a justitia omnibus, a justice universally valid and implementable. This justice is ensured through developing the principle of equal liberty and the principle of difference and equality of opportunity. With the aim to persuade free and rational persons to adopt these two principles, Rawls invokes the contract argument. This latter is mainly supported by the original position and the subsequent veil of ignorance. According to Rawls, the original position is not supposed to be a realistic situation. 

Ipso facto, the veil of ignorance is a hypothetical normative representation of the types of reasons and information that are relevant to a decision on principles of justice. But since fiction has no absolute worth, then its axiological value is confined to the convictions it shapes and to a certain normative frame, so how can the principles of justice be adopted in practice? Herein, after an overview of the Rawlsian contract argument, we will focus on one difficulty related to the invoked argument, though without making an exhaustive analyse because of the limited words. Rawls’ contractual argument for the adoption of the two principles The contract argument has its origin in an intuitive idea. 

The traditional version of the state of nature is inherently unjust because certain individuals have more negotiation capacities than others, e.g.: more aptitudes, greater amount of resources or more physical force. This innate difference of capacities arranges that weaker individuals will have to do concessions to favour the stronger ones. The incertitudes of nature are affecting every individual, but some are better equipped for facing them, and they would not consent to adhere to the social contract from the moment on this latter does not ratify their advantages. Rawls considers this classical version of contract as departing from an unjust situation. Dixit Rawls his two principles are not dependent on a contingent manner on existent desires or social conditions. Hence, through supposing that some desires are generally valid and while taking as basis the accord concluded in a fair initial situation, it follows that the principles of justice are independent from circumstances. 

The contract argument is supported by two instruments: the original position (locus contractus) and the veil of ignorance. For Rawls, the hypothetical contract highlights the right way to think about and identify what principles justice requires. The original position is a heuristic procedure of justification in which, dixit Rawls, each individual can put himself at any moment, while the veil of ignorance is a dispositive assuring impartiality. A. Dobra Rawls’ two principles of justice 4 The locus contractus is a system, of premises of reasoning, favourable to the adoption of the two principles. It corresponds to an initial position of equality which guarantees equity of deliberation on the principles of justice. In this position, the individuals are endowed with an instrumental rationality: they have preferences which are coherent and ordered according to a conception of the good. 

They are also mutually disinterested, trough their amour de soi, which in the Rousseauist terminology corresponds to a passion anterior to the social ones. In addition the consequence of their rationality is that they accede to reasonability. Individuals are reasonable, in the sense that they are endowed with a sense of justice, a capacity ensuring that they will respect the terms of the social cooperation. So, the original position specifies the required conception of the individual for the contract procedure. With this aim, the locus contractus prescribes the implementation of the veil of ignorance. 

This latter filters particular information related to the individual’s identity, their inscription in the socio-economic arena, their own conception of the good and the level of civilization of the society, in order to neutralize contingencies, to neutralize the effects of natural lottery. Rawls’s two principles ensure equity of the original position and equity of distribution (Bernardi, 1999): there is no positional advantage and no unequal bargaining power. Personal endowments cannot constitute a factor in the participant’s bargaining position. Hence the mechanism which leads the parties to adopt the two principles is as following. In the original position parties seek to promote their own interest, but as they ignore their concrete situation and identity – because of the collective public perspective (Rawls, 1996) of the locus contractus - they adopt an impartial and universal standpoint. Each particular situation has an equal importance and the pursuit of self-interest is the pursuit of a general interest. 

So, first the parties do not know in advance their concrete life projects - they are not endowed with a thick conception of the good - but have a thin conception of the good, hence they choose the first principle for ensuring that they will be able, à posteriori, to realize their own conception. Second, parties have no knowledge of probabilities (which position they will occupy), in addition they have an innate sense of justice hence they will consider some concrete situations as unacceptable. So, they will choose the second principle in order to protect themselves from the less advantaged positions. The original position enables unanimity to be effective. However, because the contract argument is hypothetical, the two principles are contained within an autarkic normative and non-prescriptive fiction. Its telos is not practical in character. Now, justice is a practical concept which requires that contemporary societal – especially the reality of actors – are taken into account.

Conclusion Although Rawls’ contract argument is powerful, in the sense that it constitutes a strong mainly rhetoric plea, the idea that the two principles could be chosen in practice by rational and self-interested individuals fails. The contract argument is mainly supported by the original position and the subsequent veil of ignorance. But, if individuals are defined as rational and self-interested then it implies that they have self-knowledge. This latter enables them - with our without the veil of ignorance - to make interpersonal comparisons and calculate the probabilities they will have to occupy different positions within the institutional and social arena. Therefore, Rawls’ conception of the individual does not correspond to the reality of how individuals are formed by their goals (Sandel, 1984). The veil of ignorance is not plausible and the two principles would, in practice, not be accepted.（essay代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。（essay代写)
更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)