Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: A Theory of Justice by John Rawls
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: “Justice as Fairness is not a complete contract theory. For it is clear that the contract idea can be extended to a choice of more or less an entire ethical system, that is, to a system including principles for all the virtues and not only for justice.”

Learning Expectation: On this sub-chapter, I am thinking if I will learn:
• What is Theory of Justice according to John Rawls
• His two principles of Justice and how the two differ from each other.

Review:
Rawls’s theory states that there are two principles of justice: The first principle involves equal basic liberties, and the second principle concerns the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. According to Rawls theory, these are the principles that free and rational persons would accept in a hypothetical original position where there is a veil of ignorance hiding from the contractors all the particular facts about themselves.

It wasn’t easy to understand what Rawls is saying. Though if you will think about what he said, we can say that Justice has major two components, the basic notion of equality which the court protects and the second is about the external factors such as environment, and society.

The first principle states that equal basic liberties are involves meaning to say that justice should regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions then having chosen a conception of justice, we can suppose that they are to choose a constitution and a legislature to enact law, and so on, all in accordance with the principles of justice initially agreed upon.

The second principle states that it was concerned on the arrangement of social and economic inequalities meaning to say that our social situation is just if it is such that by this sequence of hypothetical agreements we would have contracted into the general system of rules which defines it. It will then be true that whenever social constitutions satisfy theses principle those engaged in them can say that they are cooperating on terms which they would agree if they were free and equal persons whose relations with respect to one another were fair. They could all view their arrangements as meeting the stipulations which they would acknowledge in an initial situation that embodies widely accepted and reasonable constraints on the choice of principle hence this principle cannot be sacrifice no society can, of course, be a scheme of cooperation which men enter voluntarily in a literal sense; each person finds himself placed at birth in some particular society, and the nature of this position materially affects his life prospects
What I have learned:

I learned that Justice has two principles; the first principle is applied to the basic structure of society. They are to govern the assignment of rights and duties and to regulate the distribution of social and economical advantages. This principle is about protecting us against factors that can harm us or can take advantage on us.

Review Questions:

1. Carefully explain Rawls’s conception of the original position.
2. State and explain Rawls’s first principle of justice.
3. State and explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it cannot be sacrificed?

Answers:

1. Rawls’s theory states that there are two principles of justice: The first principle involves equal basic liberties, and the second principle concerns the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. According to Rawls theory, these are the principles that free and rational persons would accept in a hypothetical original position where there is a veil of ignorance hiding from the contractors all the particular facts about themselves.

2. The first principle states that equal basic liberties are involves meaning to say that justice should regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions then having chosen a conception of justice, we can suppose that they are to choose a constitution and a legislature to enact law, and so on, all in accordance with the principles of justice initially agreed upon.

3. The second principle states that it was concerned on the arrangement of social and economic inequalities meaning to say that our social situation is just if it is such that by this sequence of hypothetical agreements we would have contracted into the general system of rules which defines it. It will then be true that whenever social constitutions satisfy theses principle those engaged in them can say that they are cooperating on terms which they would agree if they were free and equal persons whose relations with respect to one another were fair. They could all view their arrangements as meeting the stipulations which they would acknowledge in an initial situation that embodies widely accepted and reasonable constraints on the choice of principle hence this principle cannot be sacrifice no society can, of course, be a scheme of cooperation which men enter voluntarily in a literal sense; each person finds himself placed at birth in some particular society, and the nature of this position materially affects his life prospects.

Discussion Question:

1. On the first principle, each person ahs an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty as long as this does not interfere with a similar liberty for others. What does this allow people to do? Does it mean, for example, that people have right to engage in homosexual activities as long as they don’t interfere with others? Can people produce and view pornography if it does not restrict anyone’s freedom? Are people allowed to take drugs in the privacy of their homes?

2. Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon different principles than give by Rawls? For example, why wouldn’t they agree to an equal distribution of wealth and income rather than an unequal distribution? That is, why wouldn’t they adopt socialism rather than capitalism? Isn’t socialism just as rational as capitalism?

Answers:

1. The first principle is applied to the basic structure of society. They are to govern the assignment of rights and duties and to regulate the distribution of social and economical advantages. The aspect of the social system that defines and secures the equal liberties of the citizenship and those specify and establish social and economic equalities. The basic liberties of citizens are, roughly speaking, political liberty (the right to vote and to be eligible for public office) together with freedom of speech and assembly; liberty of conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person along with the right to hold personal property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by the concept of the rule of the law. These liberties are all required to be equal by the first principle and not those people engage in homosexual because as we all know God create man and woman not the other way around. So if you violate the rule of the law there is some punishment equivalent to your wrong doing.

2. I do think yes, because even like what they say that people are selfish in nature, we are also taught to live for other people. And those values are the reasons why we can agree on different principles that we know as right.

As for the example, I do think that people will still choose socialism because they knew that what they do are the right things. In addition, people also knew that in capitalism, only few people will be benefited and this will be against what the moral values that they knew.