Rawls respond and Ciulla response Essay
John Rawls explains how the coherent classification of principles of justice may become an entity that would create a communal accord under non-discriminatory circumstances. That expounds a hypothesis of justice from an implicit agreement or social contract. The political culture of a democratic society and its interpretation of constitution and legal norms for certain basic ideas can be grouped into a conception of political justice. These ideas must be in the knowledge of the citizens who discuss them in debates and other constitutional forums.
The shared practices and institutions can bring about bitterness; organizing the society around fair principles of cooperation is the way by which can keep such problems within limits. The guarantee of basic liberties means that individual citizens would be free to adopt their own views about morality and religion resulting in emergence of comprehensive religious and moral doctrines. As per the idea of the Two Principles of Justice, individuals have as much liberty as they possibly can, but that liberty cannot contravene with the liberty of other individuals (Rawls).
Secondly, economic and social inequalities are to be arranged so as to make them maximally advantageous to the least advantaged in society. There must be measures which ensure that
Need essay sample on "Rawls respond and Ciulla response"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $ 13.90/page
I completely agree with John Rawls Theory of Justice, as he has defined the doctrine of justice which would govern a model society, inclining more towards the procedures and practices that would restore justice to an unjust society.
The Ciulla reading directly addresses one of Ian Maitland’s claims. Ciulla has discussed the exploitation of needs in the reading which explains that it is thought that every person has a wide range of options to select when it comes to living. But originally it is not like that because people who have got all those options open which are degrading and disrespectful don’t have the freedom to choose the good options and therefore are destined to choose the degrading options. However it is a fact that they are free to select from the options available and therefore get exploited by their own wish (Ciulla 82).
Ian Maitland while explaining the ethically appropriate labor standards in international sweatshops explains that the classical liberal standard is when a wage and work is accepted by the worker freely and the employer proved the worker with less risk and improved working conditions but it is reported that the working conditions provided to the workers is low as the wages are lower than the living wages. On the contrary Ciulla argues that the concept that, it is wrong to force a needy person to be one’s slave but it is right if the needy person agrees to be one’s slave is one and the same thing, because in both the condition the person who is being slave is exploited (Maitland 199).
I agree with what Ciulla has said because if we look at the market today the rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer. This indicates that there is a misbalance of distributing money. Now who will decide that so and so should be given so and so, the answer to it is government. The people working in sweatshops are being exploited because of the wages which are lower than the living wages and then they are provided with poor working conditions, still it is seen that there is a line of young adults to get an opportunity to interview and get the job, which means that they want to be exploited but if we look at the situation it simply gets clear that they have no choice except for choosing among the degrading jobs.
This situation is not created by the public searching for work but by the companies who are exploiting these people just to get more of profit. This should be stopped by the government so that these people can be prevented from being exploited by the hands of these companies. As an economic agent when we talk about the market, whatever decisions we make, we can’t get equal benefits from them or it can be said that everyone can not be benefited in a market equally, but we can strive to reduce the chances of loses which favors both the producer and the consumer.
Ciulla, Joanne B. The Working Life: The Promise and Betrayal of Modern Work. California: Times Books, 2000. <http://library.seattleu.edu/search~S9?/pcohen/pcohen/1,2,2,E/l962~966911&FF=pcohen&1,1,,0,0>
Kristol, Irving. “A Capitalist Conception of Justice.” George, Richard t. De. and Joseph A. Pichler. Ethics, Free Enterprise & Public Policy. New York. Oxford University Press, 1978. 57-69 <http://library.seattleu.edu/search~S9?/pcohen/pcohen/1,2,2,E/l962~966903&FF=pcohen&1,1,,0,0>
Rawls, John and Kelly, Erin. Justice of Fairness. Harvard University Press, 2001. <http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=AjrXZIlbK1cC&pg=RA1-PA42&dq=Justice+as+Fairness,+sections+13.1>
Maitland, Ian. “In Defense of International Sweatshops.” <http://library.seattleu.edu/search~S9?/pcohen/pcohen/1,2,2,E/l962~966910&FF=pcohen&1,1,,0,0>