scholarly journals Justice Beyond the State: Social Practices and Relational Equality

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (57) ◽  
pp. 53-65
Author(s):  
Vitor Sommavilla de Souza Barros
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Social Practices ◽  
The State ◽  
Individual Behaviour ◽  
James I ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
Scope Of Justice ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
International Social

In this paper, I argue that principles of justice, contrary to what John Rawls and Thomas Nagel believe, do apply transnationally. I start with a debate about the proper scope of justice and defend the view according to which social practices, apart from the structure of the state, ought to be included in the purview of justice. However, I hold that there is no need to include individual behaviour, alongside social practices, opposing G. A. Cohen’s view on this matter and agreeing with Aaron James. I then argue for a relational account of equality, understood as a central principle of justice, whose application is feasible at the transnational level. Finally, I briefly discuss two examples of international social practices that could (and in my view ought to) be assessed in terms of social justice and respond to two objections to my position.

scholarly journals EKSISTENSI KEADILAN SOSIAL DALAM KEUANGAN PUBLIK ISLAM

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 40-56
Author(s):  
Ramadhan Razali ◽  
Sutan Febriansyah
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Qualitative Method ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Economic Level ◽  
Library Research ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
Information Media ◽  
Principles Of Justice

The Conclusion form this research is social justice in Islamic societies can prosper society and advance the economic level of the State. The existence of the principle of social justice can be seen from the instruments of Islamic distribution of interest in equalizing wealth in society. The principle of justice is also contained in the Islamic land tax instrument. Therefore, the bidding instrument in Islamic public finance offered by Abi Ja'far Ibn Nasr al-Dawudi  is very relevant to this era. This study uses Adam Smith's taxation theory which says that the principles of taxation are certainty, fairness, economics, and belief. While for the theory of social justice the writer uses the theory of John Rawls which explains about justice must represent the principles of justice and equality. The method used by the author is a qualitative method. Through collecting data and information through literature (library research). As primary data in this study is the book Al-Dawudi, that is Wa b Al-Amwal by Abi Ja'far Ibn Nasr Al-Dawudi. While for secondary data the authors use books related to the theme, namely the thesis or dissertation of journals and information media relating to the theme of this thesis. What was being discussed was discussing history and discussing contemporary Islamic economics.

The Point of Justice

John Rawls ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 148-160
Author(s):  
Rainer Forst
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Moral Point ◽  
Moral Point Of View ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Luck Egalitarians ◽  
Social Circumstance ◽  
Better Than

John Rawls famously claimed that “the accidents of natural endowment and the contingencies of social circumstance” are “arbitrary from a moral point of view.” Luck egalitarians believe that a conception of justice that eliminates the effects of circumstance but not of choice captures that intuition better than Rawls’s own principles of justice. This chapter argues that the opposite is the case. We can learn from Rawls that one cannot overcome moral arbitrariness in social life by using a morally arbitrary distinction between choice and circumstance. Furthermore, the chapter argues that the incompatibility between these two approaches points to a deeper difference between a deontological and a teleological paradigm that is crucial for the debate between relational and nonrelational notions of political and social justice.

Justice in a Market Economy

2006 ◽  
pp. 60-76
Author(s):  
Robert A. Schultz
Keyword(s):  
Social Contract ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Equality Of Opportunity ◽  
Original Position ◽  
Difference Principle ◽  
The Social ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
Fair Equality Of Opportunity ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Principles Of Justice

As we saw from the last two chapters, the ethical IT professional is embedded in contexts of management, organization, and society. Ethical behavior for the IT professional is, therefore, impacted by the ethics of people and institutions in his or her environment. The primary term for ethical institutions is justice.1 In the next three chapters, we will examine the justice of institutions impacting the IT professional. The framework used will be that provided by the works of John Rawls (1999, 2001). Rawls’ work is based on the idea of a social contract, that a justly ordered society is one to which individuals can freely decide to obligate themselves. But our decision will very likely be biased if we base it on our current situation. So Rawls’ major addition is to say that the decision must be made prior to being in society, without knowledge of what our position will be in society, and it will be a decision we will be obligated to stick to and expect others to make and stick to as well. The basic principles for society chosen in this position (which Rawls calls the original position) will be the Principles of Justice. According to Rawls (1999, 2001), there will be two: 1. The First Principle of Justice or Greatest Equal Liberty: Society is to be arranged so that all members have the greatest equal liberty possible for all, including fair equality of opportunity. Each individual has basic liberties which are not to be compromised or traded off for other benefits. Besides the basic freedoms such as freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and so on, it includes equality of opportunity. Thus society’s rules are not biased against anyone in it and allow all to pursue their interests and realize their abilities. 2. The Second Principle of Justice or the Difference Principle: Economic inequalities in society are justified insofar as they make members of the least advantaged social class, better off than if there were no inequality. The social contract basis for this principle is straightforward: If you are entering a society with no knowledge of your specific place in that society, the Difference Principle guarantees that you will be no worse off than you need to be to keep the society functioning.

Just Constraints

2004 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANDREW MASON
Keyword(s):  
Human Nature ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Middle Ground ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
Feasibility Constraints ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Different Levels

Political theorists disagree about the extent to which issues of feasibility, stability, institutional design and human nature can be bracketed in analysing the concept of justice. At one end of the spectrum some argue that no analysis of justice can be adequate in the absence of an account of how it could be implemented, whereas at the other end there are those who argue that principles of justice are logically independent of issues of feasibility. Influenced by the work of John Rawls, many theorists occupy the middle ground, maintaining that analyses of justice must be realistic, that is, realizable under the best of foreseeable conditions. Against Rawls and others, this article argues that feasibility does not constrain what can count as an adequate principle of justice but nevertheless maintains that there are limits on such principles that derive in part from human nature, which divergent theories of justice must respect. It also distinguishes between different levels of analysis, some of which are governed by feasibility constraints.

JUSTICE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF HUMAN NATURE ALONE

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 193-213
Author(s):  
Neera K. Badhwar
Keyword(s):  
Human Nature ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
The Right

Abstract:Contra John Rawls, G. A. Cohen argues that the fundamental principles of justice are not constrained by the limits of our nature or the nature of society, even at its historical best. Justice is what it is, even if it will never be realized, fully or at all. Likewise, David Estlund argues that since our innate motivations can be justice-tainting, they cannot be a constraint on the right conception of justice. Cohen and Estlund agree that if the attempt to implement a certain conception of justice is likely to result in widespread harm or injustice, then it should not be implemented, but that this does not entail that the conception itself is false. I argue that (i) there is no way to judge the soundness of a principle of justice independently of all psychological facts, and the effects that the principle is likely to have if it is implemented; (ii) a principle of justice that, if implemented, makes it hard or impossible for individuals committed to justice to lead happy and worthwhile lives, even if the circumstances are favorable to living justly, cannot be sound; (iii) without the constraints noted in (i) and (ii), there can be no reason to reject racist, sexist, or other wrongheaded principles of justice that have been advanced as sound over the years, principles that even Cohen and Estlund would reject. In short, justice is justice only if kept within the limits of human nature.

Keynes, Rawls, Uncertainty, and the Liberal Theory of the State

1988 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward McKenna ◽  
Maurice Wade ◽  
Diane Zannoni
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
The State ◽  
Liberal Theory ◽  
Robert Nozick ◽  
Role Of Government ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
The Government

What role, if any, should the government perform in a society? Two very different answers to this question have been provided by John Rawls and Robert Nozick. For Rawls, the government plays an important role in ensuring that the principles of justice are realized in the workings of society. For Nozick (1974), the role of government is limited to that of providing protection. The debate over these two views has led to the questioning of the entire liberal doctrine, a questioning that has taken place not only within intellectual circles, but also within the society at large.

The Antinomies of Social Justice

1993 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Spragens
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Social Bonds ◽  
Free Society ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Distribution Rules ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Single Standard ◽  
Sense Of Justice

Theories of social justice are either hegemonic (defending a single determinate standard), skeptical (finding social justice to be radically indeterminate if not meaningless), or pluralistic (claiming that we can disqualify all but a handful of standards, but that we cannot definitively adjudicate among these). I offer here a variation of the pluralistic view, arguing that a single standard cannotbe definitive because of what is termed the antinomies of social justice. These antinomies arise where the demands of justice collide with elements of the gratuitous that are morally valid or are practically unavoidable. Where this occurs, all possible distribution rules turn out to be unfair. An important implication of the argument is that liberal democracies cannot find their grounds for consensus, as John Rawls contends, in a common attachment to principles of justice. Instead, common interests and civic friendship will always be necessary supplements to the sense of justice as a source of social bonds in a free society.

International Ethics within the International Social Contract

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy E. Eckert
Keyword(s):  
Social Contract ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
International System ◽  
Choice Situation ◽  
Social Cooperation ◽  
International Ethics ◽  
The Social ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Initial Choice ◽  
International Social

The social contract tradition derives its ethical force from the hypothetical agreement that parties would reach in an initial choice situation. This initial choice situation brings together a description of the circumstances of justice, various extra-contractarian moral assumptions, and an instrumental theory of rational choice. The circumstances of justice refer to the conditions that require principles of justice. These conditions include the existence of social cooperation along with moderate scarcity. In the absence of such conditions, principles of justice are either unnecessary or impossible to sustain. Social cooperation generates both benefits and burdens, and it is the allocation of those components of social cooperation that requires principles of justice. The application of the social contract to the domestic context dates back to the ancient Greeks, though their version of the contract was somewhat crude and rather one-sided in favor of state authority. Later versions of the social contract would oblige the state to provide much more to citizens in return for their allegiance. John Rawls is widely credited with resurrecting the social contract tradition in the twentieth century. His thought holds special significance for the international social contract, as he extends the contractual approach ethics into the international system where his predecessors declined to do so.

scholarly journals L’IDEA DI EQUITÀ NELLE TEORIE DELLA GIUSTIZIA

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salvatore Veca
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Collective Choice ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theoretical Contribution ◽  
Analytical Argument ◽  
Principles Of Justice

The author examines the role that the idea of fairness plays in theories of social justice. Referring to the fundamental theoretical contribution of John Rawls, he focuses on the connections between the two principles of justice as fairness and offers an interpretation that combines an intuitive argument in favor of the principles with an analytical argument and the theory of collective choice. In conclusion, he cites cases of the extension of the concept of justice as fairness, stressing in particular the importance of and difficulty in establishing a coherent idea of global justice.

Towards a Concept of Equality of Well-Being: Overcoming the Social and Legal Construction of Inequality

1994 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcia H. Rioux
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Obligation ◽  
Differential Treatment ◽  
Economic Policies ◽  
Sharp Focus ◽  
The Social ◽  
Principles Of Justice

The ways in which a society provides for people who, for one reason or another, are more socially and economically dependent throws into sharp focus the problems of equality as a political construct. The basic dilemma of social dependency is that of reconciling the responsibility of the state to ensure equality with the rights and needs of those who are dependent. The social, legal and economic policies in place at any given time in history reflect the ways that principles of justice have legitimated differential treatment. To study the case of intellectual disability, therefore, is to reflect upon the legal microcosm of the struggle for social justice and the parameters of political obligation to ameliorate inequality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document