The Importance of Some Differences

By

I agree with most of Rawls' Theory of Justice regarding the Original Position, specifically the Veil of Ignorance– there is great merit in disregarding differences to achieve neutrality when deciding. Reading the Theory of Justice reminded me of the "cookie rule" enforced during childhood. It goes as follows: whoever splits the cookie chooses their piece last. This creates a situation in which the "cutter," knowing they have the last choice, does their best to ensure their "maximum" gain, which in this scenario means cutting the cookie equally.

Although clearly more complex than the cookie, I believe Rawls' Theory of Justice best explains how to judge in a vacuum society rather than one with history. Rawls does explicate that his "experiment" is closed from other societies and that all strictly adhere to the principles. However, I fail to see how these restrictions help prove that the Original Position is something our society could feasibly implement. I believe that Rawls' account weakens when questioned on how it could be implemented today since there is no accurate way to place a complete veil of ignorance. Even if one is not consciously considering differences and their self-interest, there is no sure way to determine that they are not subconsciously doing so. Additionally, specific differences are essential to consider, and by ignoring them, larger injustices are worsened. In ignoring a difference, mechanisms to remedy harms might not be created/considered since no "difference" is accounted for. Therefore, Rawls needs to account for history and the differences it placed upon different groups when considering proper and just distribution.

Taking in the moral importance of remedying past harms targeted at marginalized groups, it becomes clear there are times when history and "differences" shouldered by certain groups and must be considered in the Original Position, with extra care should be taken to remedy them. In cases where marginalized groups have faced past injustices, disregarding this morally relevant history in the Original Position might cause more harm than good. In other words, ignoring "differences" that societal structures have caused does not tackle the core issue but instead "moves on," allowing the harm to remain stagnant or, worst, seen as "fixed," but instead due to it not being taken into account, is allowed to persist in a more subtle, more harmful manner.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more