Lecture notes, cheat sheets
Этика. Принципы справедливости Дж. Ролза (самое важное) Directory / Lecture notes, cheat sheets Table of contents (expand) 31. Principles of justice J. Rawls Justice in ethics is considered primarily as a problem of equality. The connection between justice and equality is significantly specified by J. Rawls, who analyzes justice as a principle of social organization. He introduces the concept of equality into the definition of justice. It should be noted that he also included the concept of inequality in this definition. Justice, therefore, is a criterion of equality and a criterion of inequality between people. People, of course, must be equal in their rights, and this equality must be enshrined in law. They must be equal in sharing social values. At the same time, inequality will also be fair, but when it is such an unequal distribution that gives an advantage to everyone. Accordingly, the definition of justice given by J. Rawls can be divided into two principles. 1. Every person shall have equal rights in respect of the most extensive system of equal fundamental freedoms compatible with similar freedoms for all other people. 2. Economic and social inequalities must be organized in such a way that benefits for all can really be expected from them and access to positions and posts is open to all. Apparently, equality is not always and not for everyone a priority and is preferable. Thus, equality in the socio-economic sphere, if it is achieved at the cost of restricting economic activity and forcing a low standard of living for the majority of citizens, cannot be considered a blessing. On the contrary, inequality in wealth is the basis of a compensatory advantage for each person (for example, the payment of a high progressive tax on wealth), in which case it is of course fair. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." It was precisely on this principle of justice that it was also assumed that although people would receive an unequal amount of goods, the principle of receiving them would equally apply to everyone: "according to need." The main difference is that the first part of this formula can be explained: "From each (taxes!) according to income"; and the second - "Each poor as much as society can afford to distribute to provide a social minimum of benefits." But under the same conditions, this inequality will be unfair to wealthy taxpayers. Thus, according to the conclusions of J. Rawls, the ratio of equality and justice needs to be significantly clarified: fair equality in the distribution of rights and duties and, accordingly, the general accessibility of justice to people; just functional inequality - in the distribution of goods. J. Rawls also considers justice in relationships between people. Author: Zubanova S.G. << Back: Analytical Philosophy. Moral language analysis >> Forward: Morality and politics We recommend interesting articles Section Lecture notes, cheat sheets: ▪ Insurance law. Lecture notes ▪ History of world and domestic culture. Crib See other articles Section Lecture notes, cheat sheets. Read and write useful comments on this article. Latest news of science and technology, new electronics: The existence of an entropy rule for quantum entanglement has been proven
09.05.2024 Mini air conditioner Sony Reon Pocket 5
09.05.2024 Energy from space for Starship
08.05.2024
Other interesting news: ▪ Stable nanographene magnet developed ▪ Portable DVD Player SAMSUNG DVD-L100 ▪ Ultra-reliable PX03SN Series SSDs from Toshiba News feed of science and technology, new electronics
Interesting materials of the Free Technical Library: ▪ site section Acoustic systems. Article selection ▪ article Sechenov Ivan. Biography of a scientist ▪ article Snow scooter. Personal transport ▪ article Automatic charger. Encyclopedia of radio electronics and electrical engineering ▪ article Specularity of paper. physical experiment
Leave your comment on this article: All languages of this page Home page | Library | Articles | Website map | Site Reviews www.diagram.com.ua |