scholarly journals Diskursus Mengenai Keadilan Sosial: Kajian Teori Keadilan dalam Liberalisme Locke, Persamaan Marx, dan 'Justice as Fairness' Rawls

MELINTAS ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 309
Author(s):  
Alfensius Alwino
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Abstract Theory ◽  
Veil Of Ignorance ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
Political Studies ◽  
History Of ◽  
Principles Of Justice

Through the history of philosophy, the theme of justice has become a very important topic. Thinkers of the theories such as utilitarianism, intuitionism, eudaimonism, perfectionism, liberalism, communitarianism, and socialism have discussed the theme. As French philosopher Alain Badiou has pointed out, the central of political studies from the time of Plato to the present day is justice. The question is what is justice? For John Rawls, justice is the supreme virtue of human. In <em>A Theory of Justice</em>, Rawls asserts that justice is the first priority in social institutions, as is truth in the system of thought. A theory, however elegant and economical, must be rejected or revised if it is not true, so the laws and institutions, however efficient and neat, must be reformed or removed if it is unfair. Rawls criticizes the theory of justice in Lockean liberalism and Marxian socialism. Both theories of justice are very strong colouring the landscape of debate on the roots of thinking about justice. For Rawls, liberalism that accentuates basic freedoms can create inequality between people who have better abilities with less fortunate people. Similarly, socialism which accentuates equality ignores basic freedoms. The two theories of justice are considered ideological in the sense that there are hidden interests behind the jargons of freedom and equality. Rawls then develops an abstract theory of justice, in which the participants depart from a veil of ignorance, so that they are free of any interest and ambition. Here they might build a cooperative contract in a society governed by the principles of justice.

Justice as Fairness: For Groups?

1975 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 607-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vernon Van Dyke
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Homogeneous State ◽  
Dominant Form ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Indigenous Groups ◽  
The Social ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Almost All

In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls assumes that the principles of justice are for individuals in a society, and in general he assumes that the society is an ethnically homogeneous state. He thus follows the tradition associated with the dominant form of the social contract theory, which focuses on the individual and the state. His assumptions neglect the fact that almost all states are ethnically plural or heterogeneous, and that many of them confer special status and rights on ethnic groups as collective entities; for example, many of them confer special status and rights on indigenous groups, on groups disadvantaged by prior discrimination, and on minorities and other groups conceded a right to survive as distinct cultural entities. Status and rights for groups necessarily mean differentiation among individuals depending on their membership; and this in turn means that a theory of justice that focuses on the individual and neglects the group both fails to account for existing practices and fails to give guidance where the practices are at issue.

Morality, Rational Choice, and Semantic Representation

1988 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Gauthier
Keyword(s):  
Rational Choice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Rational Choice Theory ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Semantic Representation ◽  
New Venture ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Historical Antecedents

(1) In his recent paper, “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical,” John Rawls makes use of a footnote to disown what to many readers must have seemed one of the most striking and original underlying ideas of his theory of justice, that it “is a part, perhaps the most significant part, of the theory of rational choice.” That Rawls should issue this disclaimer indicates, at least in my view, that he has a much clearer understanding of his theory, and its relationship to rational choice than he did at the time that he wrote A Theory of Justice. As I note in Morals by Agreement (pp.4–5), Rawls does not show that principles of justice are principles of rational choice. Hence, in appropriating the idea, I can claim diat I am undertaking a pioneering enterprise. No doubt Thomas Hobbes would have undertaken it had the resources of the theory of rational choice been at his disposal, but I do not intend to pursue counterfactuals in a search for historical antecedents. Moral theory as rational choice theory is, I claim, a new venture.

Sprawiedliwość jako racjonalność

Etyka ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 111-132
Author(s):  
Hanna Buczyńska-Garewicz
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Veil Of Ignorance ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
The Veil

The article deals with John Rawls’ theory of justice. The principal categories of Rawls’ book are analysed; especially the “veil of ignorance” and the principles of justice. Author’s attention is focused on some philosophical aspects of the concept of justice. The question of grounding of the idea of justice is analysed. Rawls’ theory is criticized for its lack of explanation in which way the idea of justice is given: is it a primordial experience or a result of the rational calculus?

scholarly journals TRANSFORMASI KESETARAAN BURUH: STUDI KRITIS TEORI KEADILAN JOHN RAWLS

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 327
Author(s):  
Mohammad Takdir
Keyword(s):  
Social Structure ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Labor Rights ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Theories Of Justice

This paper aims to change the laborers who are always seen as an underdeveloped and oppressed societies. In looking at the relations of laborers and employers, some people often use the paradigm of slavery rather than the humanitarian paradigm.This research used theory of justice John Rawls’s as an approach in fighting for labor rights in the works system in Indonesia. Justice for Rawlsm defined as a combination of freedom and equality. Rawlsian’s theory of justice often refereed to as “liberal equality”, which emphasizes the justice as fairness aspect. This theory of justice used to offer a new alternative in correcting earlier theories of justice, such as utilitarianism and institutionalism that are perceived as failing in reducing errors to the paradigm of labor. This study showed that injustice in a social structure of society is more due to the loss of deep empathy associated with the argument of equality as a keyword in the conception of justice. Rawls offers the concept of justice as fairness that should be the main foothold in the struggle for equality of laborers in various aspects, especially concerning the fulfillment of rights, obligations, and welfare of life.Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengubah paradigma tentang buruh yang selalu dipandang sebagai sekelompok masyarakat yang terbelakang dan tertindas. Dalam memandang relasi buruh dan majikan, sebagian orang seringkali menggunakan paradigma perbudakan daripada paradigma kemanusiaan (humanitarian paradigm). Penelitian ini menggunakan teori keadilan John Rawls sebagai pendekatan dalam memperjuangkan hak-hak buruh dalam sistem kerja di Indonesia. Keadilan bagi Rawls, diartikan sebagai perpaduan antara kebebasan (freedom) dan kesamaan (fairness). Teori keadilan Rawlsian sering disebut dengan istilah “kesamaan-liberal”, yang menekankan pada aspek justice as fairness.Teori keadilan ini digunakan untuk menawarkan sebuah alternatif baru dalam mengoreksi teori-teori keadilan sebelumnya, seperti utilitarianisme dan institusionalisme yang dianggap gagal dalam mengurangi kesalahan terhadap paradigma buruh. Hasil Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa ketidakadilan dalam sebuah struktur sosial masyarakat lebih diakibatkan oleh hilangnya rasa empati yang mendalam terkait dengan argumen kesetaraan (equality) sebagai kata kunci dalam konsepsi keadilan. Rawls menawarkan konsep tentang justice as fairness yang harus menjadi pijakan utama dalam memperjuangkan kesetaraan buruh dalam berbagai aspek, terutama menyangkut pemenuhan hak, kewajiban dan kesejahteraan hidup.

How to Justify Principles of Justice

2020 ◽  
Vol 2019 (4) ◽  
pp. 163-192
Author(s):  
Zhang Guoqing
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Original Position ◽  
Rational Decision ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Veil Of Ignorance ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
The Core ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
The Veil

AbstractJohn Rawls assumes that in the original position, under the veil of ignorance, after bargaining amongst each other, free, equal, moral and rational persons would make a rational decision to accept the principles of justice as fairness and thus the principles are established. Critics, however, question the authenticity and validity of this justification strategy. When rational individuals take the principles of justice as an original agreement, it is not a real contract. Rawls’s conception of justice as fairness is just a personal notion, some individuals may accept it, but it is impossible to be accepted by all human beings in a real world. Therefore there is a justification/acceptance paradox of those principles which are the core of his political philosophy. So how should we justify those principles? Its answers may be provided not in the light of a philosophical justification but of a scientific one.

scholarly journals A REVIEW ON RAWLS THEORY OF JUSTICE

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-36
Author(s):  
M.Yasir Said ◽  
Yati Nurhayati
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Case Review ◽  
Core Concept ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
The Core ◽  
Theories Of Justice

Justice is an abstract idea and understanding the core concept of various types of justice will help scholars, lawyers and law enforcement to develop and use the theory for legislative drafting, judicial review, case review, in court defense, and legal research and writing. In this paper we discussed the essence of Rawls Justice, the implication and compared it to other theories of justice. Therefore this paper will focused on examining and reviewing John Rawls idea of Justice and how to implement it in society. The method used in this study is doctrinal legal research. The result of this study while we discussed that the three Rawls principles cannot be realized together because one principle collides with another. Rawls prioritizes that the principle of the equal liberty which is lexically maximized precedes the second and third principles. However we believe Justice as Fairness in action should not mean that there is equality but rather emphasizes the concept of balance for the law in providing justice.

Rawls’ Concept Of Justice As Political

1998 ◽  
pp. 116-119
Author(s):  
Terry Hoy
Keyword(s):  
Public Discourse ◽  
Reflective Equilibrium ◽  
Moral Justification ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Moral Basis ◽  
Modus Vivendi ◽  
History Of ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Nature And Society

Rawls' theory of justice as fairness involves a central contention that principles of justice essential to the structure of a constitutional democracy must be viewed as political in contrast to more comprehensive moral, philosophical or religious doctrines. The concept of justice is not its being true to an antecedent moral order and given to us, but its being congruent with our self-understanding within the history of justice as political is not a mere modus vivendi, for it embodies an overlapping consensus that does have a moral basis. Critical reaction to Rawls has been that what is simply a consensus within a tradition of public discourse cannot afford an adequate criteria of moral justification, and that Rawls cannot define the moral basis for justice as fairness without some reference to a comprehensive theory of the good. But it will be argued that critics are missing what is central to Rawls' theory of moral justification as what he sees to be the outcome of a process of "wide reflective equilibrium" in which principles of justice initially given within a tradition are weighed against rival moral theories and in relation to scientific theories of human nature and society in order to establish what seems "most reasonable to us."

POLITICAL LIBERALISM AND TRUTH

Legal Theory ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jody S. Kraus
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
Order Theory ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Political Conception ◽  
Principles Of Justice

Every theory of justice requires a first-order theory specifying principles of justice, and a second-order view explaining why those principles constitute the correct principles of justice. According to John Rawls, political liberalism is committed to the two principles of justice specified in its first-order theory, “justice as fairness.” Justice as fairness, according to Rawls, in turn presupposes the second-order view that justice is a political conception. A political conception of justice treats the principles derived from the fundamental ideas in the public political culture as the correct principles of justice. Political liberalism, however, nowhere offers a defense of the view that justice is a political conception. Indeed, it even strives to avoid the admission that it presupposes that justice is a political conception by stating only that it uses a political conception of justice, while allowing that justice might not actually be a political conception. As to the truth of its second-order presupposition, political liberalism chooses to remain agnostic. Rawls claims that political liberalism has no choice at all. To do otherwise, he argues, would lead to an internal contradiction.

scholarly journals Libertarian Justice

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 201-219
Author(s):  
Justyna Miklaszewska ◽  
Paweł Janowski
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Robert Nozick ◽  
Constitutional Democracy ◽  
Liberal State ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
American Society ◽  
The One ◽  
The Ideal

An article describes liberal theories of justice presented by John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Both of these competing liberal theories, Rawls’s and Nozick’s, share a similar rationalist approach. Both philosophers start out with assumptions about human nature and from there proceed to deduce a theory of justice upon which they in turn base their vision of the perfect liberal State. For Rawls, this is a welfare State, whereas in Nozick’s theory it is a State which does not  interfere in economics. On the one hand, a Platonic influence with a utopian mindset can certainly be detected here. On the other hand, contemporary American society is a point of reference for both theories. However, Rawls attempts to bring this perfect, universal model of the State closer to reality and to embody it in a liberal constitutional democracy in which human rights are protected (especially in his later works), whereas Nozick adheres to the general utopian formula. An examination of his theory shows that justice cannot be reconciled with the ideal of a minimal State and that attempts to apply the principles of justice actually reveal the defects of his theoretical approach.

Rawls and the Contract Theory of Civil Disobedience*

1977 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 1-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. W. Sumner
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Contract Theory ◽  
Civil Disobedience ◽  
Political Obligation ◽  
Original Position ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Critical Attention ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
The Way

Since its appearance in 1971, John Rawls’ A Theory of justice has attracted much critical attention. Most of this attention has inevitably centred on the two principles of justice for institutions and on their derivation from the original position. This paper will examine a part of the system which has not yet received such close scrutiny — Rawls’ theory of political obligation in general and civil disobedience in particular. My main aim is to understand this theory, since there are crucial respects in which it is undeveloped. But I shall also along the way comment on its possibilities; these comments will for the most part take the form of comparisons with its utilitarian rival.In what follows I shall not confine myself to the material in Rawls’ book, but rather use the appearance of the book as an opportunity to review the development of the theory of political obligation since “Justice as Fairness”. When one surveys the period bounded by that initial paper and by the book, certain patterns form.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document