Is this OK? NoI think that we should individually strive to eliminate the problem of poverty. Now this is not a question of saving the lives of people, as the last assignment suggested, this is a case of attempting to eliminate the weighing effects of poverty & attempt to improve the standard of living for the 4 billion people who live in povertyPrinciple 1: Greatest Equal LibertyJohn Rawls states that every person should have the same privilege whereby I don’t fully agree on. Rawls claim a person must have freedom of speech but in many cases the freedom of speech is limited by the law.
The freedom to vote is a fair statement but many times a person’s vote is influenced by others through false promises or by blackmailing. The right to own property also seems like a fair deal but the government have the authority to take your property for mining and you pay property tax every month. These are just a few examples of liberties which indicates that a person does not fully have equal rights to a liberty.
Although I am satisfied to have rights to basic liberties, it is not always a full right as claimed by Rawls. Principle 2a – Equality of Fair OpportunityJohn Rawls developed the most well-known conception of FEO which requires that social positions, such as jobs, be formally open and meritocratically allocated, but, in addition, each individual is to have a fair chance to attain these positions. Women faces a much greater risk of poverty as they are paid less than man even when they have the same qualification and work the same hours.Veil of IgnoranceAs John Rawls put it, “no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; or does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like. The only thing that a given member knows about themselves is that they are in possession of the basic capacities necessary to fully and willfully participate in an enduring system of mutual cooperation; each knows they can be a member of the society.
Rawls, believe that the “veil of ignorance” principle naturally leads us to broadly social-democratic, unrestricted, progressive policies, because once you’re behind the veil of ignorance, you will want strong redistribution and generous social welfare policies just in case you end up as one of the poor people in our society. Based on Rawls line of reasoning one can easily get the impression that once the veil is lifted the person who were selected and who had a say in how their unfolding society should work consistently maintain the same supposed pattern. People don’t live like that. They would find a way to cheat and get the most for themselves at the expense of others. Basically, greed is a human challenge; there’s no getting away from that.
It’s a good line of reasoning but difficult to manage and maintain.My opinion There are two very different ways of thinking about inequality. The first is all about the rich and the second is all about the poor.
There seems to be a sort of global substitute, with a few enormously rich individuals weighing down one end and the rest of poor clinging for dear life to the other. The rich have been getting richer much faster than the rest of us. Even our governments tend to look after their own, namely the groups close to the top of the wealth distribution and it is common to find that disadvantaged groups are actively excluded from power, in the name of prejudice, political expediency or some long-held grievance – the reasons vary.
