| Papers [1-15] of 50 :: [Page 1 of 4] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 —> | Search results on "RAWLS JOHN": |
|
|
John Rawls: Political Philosopher, 2005.
This paper compares the writings of political philosopher John Rawls with the writings of Robert Nozick and Friedrich Nietzsche.
1,570 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that John Rawls' thinks of his justice principles as fairness which ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance. The author points out that Robert Nozick is saying, if you take a society where some are poor and some wealthy, and spread the wealth around equally - as Rawls suggests must be done to have "justice" and "fairness" in a society - you're basically taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The paper relates that justice isn't necessarily about "fairness", in Nietzsche's world; it's in part about "reactive feelings" to an injustice.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Rawls: About Justice
Robert Nozick's Philosophical Positions vis-a-vis John Rawls Suggesting Shortcomings in Rawls' Theories
Nietzsche's View of Justice Collides with Rawls
From the Paper
"In going to great lengths to explain justice, he adds that he is not saying the concepts of justice and fairness are identical. Rather, he is alluding to the "traditional theory of the social contract," which is that in real, pure, un-corrupted fairness, "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status." Also, no one knows his "fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like." The principles of justice, in his hypothetical description, are agreed to "in an initial situation that is fair." The parties in this concept of understanding justice are "rational and mutually disinterested" - and they are not "taking an interest in one another's interests," he writes. He further sets up his argument by suggesting that those persons in his initial situation would choose two "rather different principles." "
| |
|
John Rawls? ?A Theory of Justice?, 2002.
This paper discusses John Rawls' ?A Theory of Justice?, which presents a theory of justice that supports the liberal-democratic viewpoint of the rights and freedoms of individuals in society.
1,710 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper states that the John Rawls' theory declares that no inborn benefits of political authority, substance riches or natural capability should irreversibly or overpoweringly establish life chances and that these morally subjective issues should not establish the value of political liberties to moral persons. The author points out that Rawls and numerous other moderate philosophers employed this theory as a weapon with which to impose warfare on the English nobility by which a minority was repressing monetarily and socially a majority. The author believes that, in the twentieth century, John Rawls's emphasis on impartiality has lured extra observations and stimulated extended concentration than any other exertion in ethical or opinionated philosophy.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Origin of the Theory and the State of the Justice System at that Time
Justification
Constructivism
Utilitarianism
Intuitionism
Contrast with Kant?s Theory
Impact of the Theory; Now and Then
From the Paper
"Setting the juncture for his conjecture of justice Rawls aims at the departure of utilitarianism and labels it a "distribution problem". As stated by Rawls, utilitarianism grows erroneous if it disappoints to disburse concentration to how that welfare is circulated; there is nothing incorrect, however, with the utilitarian model of publicizing the common interests. The contentment of others cannot make up for the immense anguishes by a few. This is a sharing difficulty as when the pain is circulated in one location and the pleasure is circulated everyplace else, delight disappoints to recompense for the pain i.e. "one man's fortune is another man's gain". Or else if one endures at the present for some afterward reward, then the victim is satisfied later, than likewise the beneficiary of the anguish is afterward the receiver of the pleasure, equalizes it. Equally, it is unjust to compel one to compensate for one?s sins but just if one compensates for himself. Utilitarians can't eliminate a definite type of discriminatory agreement for the reason that the reimbursements and afflictions are not disseminated reasonably by being oblivious to how that pleasure is scattered and in its place considering the figure of bliss. It is vital to observe that it is the injustice that plights Rawls not the inequality of the agreement. Such an unjust conclusion cannot survive in any moral organization. Therefore, it is no chance that considering this Rawls opts to name his conjecture "Justice as Fairness"."
| |
|
Distributive Justice: John Rawls and Social Injustice Issues, 2006.
A discussion of John Rawls theory of justice and how it can be applied to the issues and problems of the homeless.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 5 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Determining how well-suited distributive justice theories are as frameworks for formulating and/or defending the justice-related grievances and aspirations of homeless people can best be achieved by focusing on a particular theory. Narrowing the focus primarily to the work of a specific distributive justice theorist, such as John Rawls, provides a concise and clearly defined framework which can then be systematically applied to homelessness issues. This paper examines the applicability of Rawls' theory in the context of addressing the grievances and aspirations of homeless people.
| |
|
Rawls and Utilitarianism, 2002.
This paper discusses the difference in Rawls opinion to that of Utilitarianism.
3,525 words (approx. 14.1 pages), 6 sources, $ 129.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Utilitarianism is a theory of ethics that suggests that the rightness or wrongness of a certain action is determined by the amount of happiness that it produces for the greatest number of people. Rawls saw a weakness in utilitarianism in that it assumed that the rights of the minority could be sacrificed for the good of the majority. Rawls believed that the basic social institutions of the well-ordered state, including its constitution, had to satisfy the fundamental principles of social justice. This was his main concern. He especially believed that such a principle was directly connected to having a contract where everyone understood that it was in everyone's interest to have social justice.
| |
|
Rawls, Nozick and Distributive Justice, 2007.
A discussion on whether the liberal state should be concerned with the 'losers' in a capitalist economy.
1,538 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is a comparison between the political theories of John Rawls and Robert Nozick and their opinions on distributive justice. Very emotive examples are utilised throughout this paper and the welfare state and the legitimacy of such a system is discussed. The Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' to legitimise the welfare state is described and the counter arguments of Nozick are reviewed. Finally, there is also a mention of morality and philanthropy.
From the Paper
"Rawls's theory is based upon the view that there should be an equal distribution of the wealth of society among all individuals, where "everyone should have an equal share" (Clayton et al, 2002, p165). He believes that all individuals have an equal claim to these benefits and that individuals should not be "advantaged or disadvantaged by natural future or social circumstances" (John Rawls, 1971, p18) in their lives which they have no direct control over, such as family, social class, and physical and mental attributes. His view is that men are born into different positions within society and so they have different expectations of life determined, in part by the political system, as well as by economic and social circumstances and in this way the institutions of society "favour certain starting places over others" (Ibid, 1971, p7). "
| |
|
Jerry Rawlings, 2002.
An examination of the political career of Jerry Rawlings, the Ghanaian military and political leader.
968 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the career of Jerry Rawlings, the military and political leader who led the coup that ousted the military junta in Ghana in 1979. It examines how at the time, he stepped aside to allow a civilian president, Hilla Limann, govern and how in December 1981, he deposed Limann, suspended the constitution, banned all political parties and later introduced economic reforms in 1983 that helped revive the economy. It shows how Rawlings came to power as leader in 1982 and how the first government lasted until 1987 as the Provisional National Defense Council (PNDC).
From the Paper
"In the period immediately after the creation of the AFRC, the group made it clear that it saw the former leadership as having failed to be accountable to the people. The administration of Hilla Limann was thus expected to measure up to the new standard of accountability advocated by the AFRC. Limann's People's National Party (PNP) began the Third Republic with control of only 71 of the 140 legislative seats -- the opposition Popular Front Party (PFP) won 42 seats, while 26 seats were distributed among three lesser parties. Limann was a former diplomat and a noncharismatic figure with no personal following, and the ruling PNP included people of conflicting ideological orientations. The most immediate threat to the Limann administration was the AFRC, especially those officers who organized themselves into the "June 4 Movement" to monitor the civilian administration, which is why the government ordered Rawlings and several other army and police officers associated with the AFRC into retirement. This clearly proved ineffective as the economy continued its decline ("Ghana and the Rawlings Era")."
| |
|
"A Mother in Mannville" by Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, 2001.
This is an analyis of "A Mother in Mannville" written by Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings.
860 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The author examines the story "A Mother in Mannville," by looking at the different settings, characters, similies and metaphors, as well as the different types of imagery that the author Majorie Kinnan Rawlings used in her short story.
From the Paper
"The setting of the story is very calm and peaceful, and Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings uses beautiful similes or metaphors to enhance it. First of all, she describes the color of the laurel and the rhododendron in a way that symbolizes a warm home. Page 113: ?The rhododendron was in bloom, a carpet of color, across the mountainsides, soft as the May winds that stirred the hemlocks.? Second of all, the sounds going on in the story are very quiet; there are none that are sudden or unexpected. Page 114: ?Then he began to chop, the blows were rhythmic and steady? the sound no more of an interruption than a consistent rain.? Third of all, it seems as though the orphanage and the author?s home are cut off from the rest of the world. Page 112: ??in winter the snowdrifts are so deep that the institution is cut off from the village below, from all the world.? in brief, throughout the story everything remains serene and quiet and it reflects to some extent the events of the story;"
| |
|
Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, 2001.
A look at this famous writer and an examination of some of her more popular works.
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 60.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the life of Majorie Rawlings and how her childhood and upbringing impacted the types of novels she wrote. She loved the folk life in Alachua County, Florida and many of her novels give a behind the scenes look at the Florida back country in the 1930s. Some of her famous works include "The Yearling" and "Jacob's Ladder".
From the Paper
"It is important when pursuing the study of history, not to get caught in the habit of reciting historical dates and facts. If this is the true study of history, then it involves nothing more than memorization. For one to truly understand why the people of a certain time period behaved as they did, it is necessary to get into their personal daily lives. It is important to know the passions of their daily struggles. It is rare that we get such as glimpse into these other lives, so long ago. This is the type of valuable information that we get when reading the works of Marjorie Rawlings.
"It is important when pursuing the study of history, not to get caught in the habit of reciting historical dates and facts. If this is the true study of history, then it involves nothing more than memorization. For one to truly understand why the people of a certain time period behaved as they did, it is necessary to get into their personal daily lives. It is important to know the passions of their daily struggles. It is rare that we get such as glimpse into these other lives, so long ago. This is the type of valuable information that we get when reading the works of Marjorie Rawlings."
| |
|
President Jerry Rawlings Of Ghana, 2000.
The military and political career of the leader of the African nation off and on since 1979.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Jerry Rawlings is a Ghanaian military and political leader who led the coup that ousted the military junta in 1979. At the time, he stepped aside to allow a civilian president, Hilla Limann, to govern, but in December 1981, Rawlings deposed Limann and suspended the constitution, banned all political parties, and later introduced economic reforms in 1983 that helped revive the economy. He won a free presidential election in 1992 and again in 1996.
Ghana had been under military rule for some time, subject to military coups such as that in 1972 under the leadership of Colonel Achaempong. The people resisted from time to time when food shortages became acute, and the government would retaliate with considerable brutality. In May 1979, Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings demanded a confrontation between officers and men..."
| |
|
Moral Epistemology, 2004.
This paper discusses the views on moral epistemology of G.E. Moore, W.D. Ross, John Rawls, and Richard Mervyn Hare.
1,705 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the viewpoints of each of the philosophers -- G.E. Moore, W.D. Ross, John Rawls and Richard Mervyn Hare -- who, at some point in their various writings, ask: How do we know what is right and correct, and how do we act upon the answer to this question? The author points out that, to varying degrees, all of these philosophers write against, and yet ,in response to the popular theories of utilitarianism and the earlier postulate of Kantian moral absolutism as embodied in the categorical imperative, but no one agrees with John Stewart Mill or Emmanuel Kant. The paper relates that, in contrast to Ross and Moore, Rawls believes that it is possible to reach some categorical generalization about society as a whole when individual rights are in conflict.
Table of Contents
G.E. Moore
W.D. Ross
John Rawls
Richard Mervyn Hare
From the Paper
"The philosopher Mervyn Hare was later to expand upon this idea that dealing with this values/factual distinction. He accepted both philosophers notions that these catagorizations were important in making moral determinations. However, unlike Ross, Hare advances a non-cognitively based ethical theory. Hare suggests that although there may not be pre-existing moral codes pre-existing or outside of the cognitive structures of the human mind, there is a need within a societal framework for moral assertions to prescribe codes in a universal fashion that makes them binding upon every human being."
| |
|
The Nature Of Justice, 2007.
Compares ancient philosopher Marcus Tullus Cicero's philosophy on the nature of justice with that of modern philosophers such as John Rawls and Martha Nussbamu
1,174 words (approx. 4.7 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 40.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares ancient Roman politician and philosopher Marcus Tullus Cicero's philosophy on the nature of justice with that of modern philosophers, John Rawls and Martha Nussbaum. The paper looks at Rawls' and Nussbaum's theories of justice and expands upon their social contract theory to examine how to better preserve justice in a modern nation, balance the rights of the majority and the minority and create a more economically balanced society.
From the Paper
"Nussbaum's fundamentally distinct nature as a thinker is in her stress on women as a category. Even in traditional societies, they cannot be viewed as fundamentally distinct from men. Individual women can choose to live in a traditional manner but this does not mean that the state can justify limiting gender equality because the majority of women might wish to do so. Thus, again like Rawls, she believes that strict utilitarianism or democracy is not feasible. But Nussbaum does not limit her discussion redistributing the economic resources of the nation like Rawls; she also focuses on the nation's political resources or human rights."
| |
|
Doing Business and Doing Good, 2002.
This paper discusses how various authors look at doing business and doing good.
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how various authors look at doing business and doing good. Sir James Goldsmith, Senator Wirth, John Rawls and John Locke opinions are discussed. John Locke's Utilitarian theory is examined to determine Locke's view which was against intervening with business interests, since peoples' property must be protected for the sake of liberty.
| |
|
Justice Outside the Vacuum, 2005.
Shows the failure of political theorists to find a definition of "and justice for all."
2,228 words (approx. 8.9 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 69.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines a variety of authors, from Plato to John Rawls and looks at why the varied theories of justice presented by these philosophers have not arrived at a single answer to the question "What is Justice?". Over the course of hundreds of years, no system of justice has addressed the fundamental divide between theory and reality- what roles do human nature and society play when determining what a just society is? The author asserts that these questions must be answered in order to describe a system of ultimate reality. The metaphor of Schroedinger's Cat is used, in addition to 8 well known authors - John Rawls, Plato, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Donne, John Stuart Mill, Henry David Thoreau, James Madison and George Clinton.
From the Paper
"From the earliest recorded writings on philosophy, the concept of justice has been a source of heated debate. The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates offers the theory "... that justice is the excellence of the soul, and injustice the defect of the soul" (Plato). The modern philosopher John Rawls envisioned a system of "justice as fairness", in which the principles of justice are "the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association" (199). In the hundreds of years that separate the two, many more theories have been discussed. Each philosopher adds to the concept his idea of where justice might come from, and how society might endeavor to become just. Yet in those thousands of years, no single thinker has described a working model for a society that is perfectly just."
| |
|
Nozick's Entitlement Theory, 2008.
Looks at the issue of distributive justice and evaluates Robert Nozick's entitlement theory.
2,630 words (approx. 10.5 pages), 9 sources, APA, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the meaning of the concept of distributive justice, which guarantees that everyone is supplied with a certain level of material means, can be interpreted based on different philosophies. The author examines Robert Nozick's libertarian three-part entitlement theory and then compares with John Rawls' difference principle. The paper concludes by demonstrating why Nozick's theory fails the test of moral justification.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Distributive Justice
Literature Review
Robert Nozick
Comparing Nozick with Rawls
Nozick / Libertarianism
Nozick / Libertarianism II
Kantians
John Locke
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Like John Locke, Nozick basically believed that an individual has the right to: one, own what he makes; and two, to "appropriate [i.e., take] anything not already owned" with the proviso that in appropriating [taking possession of] the item that person leaves enough for others and certainly leaves them "no worse off" for having appropriated the item. And further, Nozick wrote that in appropriating the item (distributive justice in action) that act does not leave the other person in a lesser position in terms of being able to appropriate something he or she desires."
| |
|
Theories of Capitalism, 2006.
This paper discusses the viewpoints of Locke, Rawls and Justice in relation to capitalism.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 0 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses Locke's right of appropriation in relation to the rise of capitalism, as tempered by John Rawls' focus on practically limited rights. The paper further discusses the need to intervene as a responsibility to correct inevitable results of a democratic and representative system that would still be unfair. The paper refers to Rawls' conservative and socialist critics and concludes by emphasizing Rawls' different viewpoint matching a very different day.
From the Paper
" The social contract of John Locke has been interpreted in ways justifying the inequalities of capitalist societies. John Rawls' ideas of justice have stressed the distribution of justice as social goods. One sees that any social system will benefit some members more than others. Unfortunately, the rise of capitalism as it coincided with liberalism and notably in the development of the United States did see some groups placed in situations of considerable injustice which Rawls has noted amply in different calls to see redistributive justice instilled."
|
|
|
