Is Fair Versus Unfair - 1583 Words

If you could change one thing that you think is unfair in society, what would it be? Would you eliminate government? Would your choice be motivated by current economic situations, the laws practiced daily or something toward social equality? Our society is riddled with mental illness, drug addiction, obesity, loss of community, imprisonment, unequal opportunity and terrible wellbeing for children. A sense of inequality is instilled and thus the question of what is fair versus unfair is brought to the surface. According to John Rawls ideology of justice is that it is equated to fairness. Rawls offers two principles of justice, the first being that each individual should have equal rights and opportunity to liberty. Secondly that†¦show more content†¦But ultimately, it acts more as a concept, as the meeting would be imaginary and it could never really happen but thought alone is enough for some. No person in that meeting would set imbalanced rules against themselves in turn th e abolishment of exploitation of people, poverty and discrimination. It is out of the Veil of Ignorance, Benjamin Hale presents the Veil of Opulence, where ignorance is replaced with false aspiration; you become under the impression that one day, you could be the next wealthiest person in the world. John Rawls notion of justice ties in with thoughts of Thomas Hobbes; Hobbes introduced what he called state of nature. Imagine waking up one day to find no government, courts, police or anything producing or enforcing laws, this is the state of nature; individuals behave solely out of self interest. Hobbes also introduces what he believes produces this anarchy in the state of nature. On his list, he includes our equality of needs, equality of equality, our limited resources and our capability for limited altruism; the first three of the four are the source for competition. To escape this state of nature, Hobbes turned to a social contract theory, where rules are set at the cost of limit ed freedom; giving up the liberty to kill, with the respect that others will abide as well. This was seen to be accepted because in sacrificing some freedoms, some self-interest is