Discuss and evaluate the Rawls principle of justice provided in the textbook

Answer 1

Under Rawls's first principle, each person is to be treated equally. It holds that each person should enjoy equally a full array of basic liberties. The second principle is more controversial. This is often interpreted to mean that public policy should raise as high as possible the social and economic well-being of society's worst-off individuals. It is criticized by both those who argue that the principle is too strong and those who think the principle is too weak. The former think that, as long as we have equal opportunity, there is no injustice when some people benefit from their own work, skill, ingenuity, or assumed risks. Therefore, such people deserve more and should not be required to produce benefits for the least advantaged. The latter group thinks that the inequalities that may result may be so great as to be clearly unjust. Therefore, the rich get richer and the poor get only a little less poor.
In developing further his second principle, Rawls imagined people gathered behind a "veil of ignorance," unaware of whether they, personally, were rich or poor, talented or incompetent. He then asked what kind of society they would create. He reasoned that the rule everyone would be able to agree on would be to maximize the well-being of the worst-off person, partially out of fear that anyone could wind up at the bottom. This view, of course, had its critics, and it represents an idealistic situation that could not likely be brought about.
Supporters of the principle of justice claim that it preserves the basic values?freedom, equality of opportunity, and a concern for the disadvantaged?that have become embedded in our moral beliefs. Critics object to various parts of the theory and would not subscribe to Rawls's principles at all. Utilitarians, for example, think the greatest good for the greatest number should reign supreme.