Taking Rawl's Two Principles of Justice to be worthwhile aims for society, I am curious about their potential and limitation within the confines of the nation-state and capitalism in the age of globalization. I see both the nation-state and capitalism as being completely contradictory to the aims of maximum equal liberty of persons and subsequently fair equality of opportunity and benifit of the least advantages. 1) As a fundamental tenant of the nation state is a stronghold on and competition over wealth and territory, is it possible for a nation state to really give maximize the equal liberty of persons when it must ignore the rights of people in other nations to acheive these ends? 2) As capitalism is a system that relies on there always being economic inequality between persons, can capitalism ever actually promote equal liberty of persons without heralding its own undoing?
2 comments:
Rawls's believes that inequalities will ALWAYS exist. Every human has a different physical strenth, mental capacity, natural talents, and so on.
Because of this inequality, Rawls came up with "the difference principle" which states that the bottom of society should be the highest they can be. I agree with Rawls on this point. It is not possible to have ALL humans be COMPLETELY equal, because we just by nature are not. Rawls, in my opinion, takes a more realistic view in wanting everyone to be able to live a happy/fufilling life.
As for 1): There is a tension in Rawls when we apply his theory on the global scale. Rawls did not think that his theory applied directly internationally but rather should be thought of as a theory of justice for the basic structure of a single society. If this generates inequalities *between* societies or enables inequalities *globally* this is not necessary a problem that Rawls is trying to address. It may still be a problem, but it is not necessarily a problem that he is trying to deal with in his theory.
As for 2): You would need to say more about capitalism requiring the generation of unfair inequalities. Is it impossible to have capitalism combined with fair inequality? If so, then this may be a problem for Rawls. But also if so, then perhaps Rawls would just want to say, oh well so much the worse for capitalism.
Post a Comment