Essay about fairness

A key component of Rawls' argument is his claim that his Principles of Justice would be chosen by parties in the original position . [10] This is a thought experiment in which the parties select principles that will determine the basic structure of the society they will live in. This choice is made from behind a veil of ignorance , which would deprive participants of information about their particular characteristics: his or her ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially, their conception of The Good. This forces participants to select principles impartially and rationally.

Rawls derives two principles of justice from the original position. The first of these is the Liberty Principle, which establishes equal basic liberties for all citizens. 'Basic' liberty entails the (familiar in the liberal tradition) freedoms of conscience, association and expression as well as democratic rights; Rawls also includes a personal property right, but this is defended in terms of moral capacities and self-respect, [27] rather than an appeal to a natural right of self-ownership (this distinguishes Rawls's account from the classical liberalism of John Locke and the libertarianism of Robert Nozick).

Examples of potentially disqualifying evidence
Past due accounts, discharged debts, late payments, collection accounts, civil judgments and/or bankruptcy; failure to exercise fiscal responsibility commensurate with income; failure to follow all traffic laws; numerous moving and non-moving violations; at fault traffic accidents; terminations or suspensions from work; reprimands or counseling for poor work performance (including Military service); failure to meet obligations (for example, auto insurance, auto registration, selective service registration, IRS requirements, child support obligations, etc.); law enforcement contacts, arrests, and convictions (as appropriate); other than Honorable discharge from the military.

Even for the affluent, it’s not clear that having increasingly expensive toys is improving their well-being in any meaningful way. When economist Robert Frank went shopping for a new grill in the 1990s, he found that you could buy a perfectly good grill for $250—or you could pay $5,000 for a grill with a rotisserie, a smoker, and two 15,000-BTU range-top burners. A year later, the high-end model had grown a wood-fired pizza oven and cost $13,000. By the mid-2000s, you could buy a grill with a lobster steamer and a built-in 35,000-BTU wok, or you could pay $35,000 for an entire “cooking suite.” Rising inequality has fueled a consumption arms race in which the fortunate few pay ever-increasing amounts solely to have the “best” product in any category—ultimately benefiting no one except luxury goods companies.

Essay about fairness

essay about fairness

Even for the affluent, it’s not clear that having increasingly expensive toys is improving their well-being in any meaningful way. When economist Robert Frank went shopping for a new grill in the 1990s, he found that you could buy a perfectly good grill for $250—or you could pay $5,000 for a grill with a rotisserie, a smoker, and two 15,000-BTU range-top burners. A year later, the high-end model had grown a wood-fired pizza oven and cost $13,000. By the mid-2000s, you could buy a grill with a lobster steamer and a built-in 35,000-BTU wok, or you could pay $35,000 for an entire “cooking suite.” Rising inequality has fueled a consumption arms race in which the fortunate few pay ever-increasing amounts solely to have the “best” product in any category—ultimately benefiting no one except luxury goods companies.

Media:

essay about fairnessessay about fairnessessay about fairnessessay about fairness