Sign up now
to enroll in courses, follow best educators, interact with the community and track your progress.
Rawls : The First & The Second Principle.
136 plays

Liberals like Rawls do care that individuals should be free to live the lives of their choice, but they care that all individuals should be free to do so and demand a fair distribution of resources for that reason.

Learn with me: The art of scoring in Political Sc. & IR OPTIONALS looking 4 some advance National & International Commentary ? Follow

Unacademy user
sir app hrr akk chapter pdayoga chemistry ka
so basically he want to say that enequality in society is crucial because it encourages the disadvantaged section of the society to progress so that automatically they will grow economically and it is also improve the socio-economic condition of country . greebi hatao ye slogan kaam nhi karega 😁
Q-would people in the original condition really choose these principle ? ANS-INTRO-John rawls define the justice through principle of "original position and Veil of ignorance"in 1971. YES-people would choose these principle to make society just: 1) everyone should have rights in most extensive total system of basic liberty compatible with the similiar equal system for all for instance fundamental rights of indian constitution provide equal rights to all 2)B)social and economic inequality attached to office and position open to all under condition of fair equal of opportunity EXAM:article 16(4) of constitution equal opportunity related to this concept that will benefited most deprived section max.
a year ago
a year ago
No dear, You have just cited what Rawls said. this is a general question , where you are asked to practically answer this.. like would You(Sumit Singh) choose this kind of principle ? are you so well judged ..? are people so rational always.. means You have to show that Why/why not people would chose these position..!
sir pls reveiw my english as well with content
Can you explain 1st principle more? Slide 10
Does it means only that everyone should hv basic rights with no specific privilege to anyone?
a year ago
Hey, Rawls argues that as the parties in the original position are all situated equally, then we can assume that they would choose an equal distribution of primary goods and From a position of equality no one would choose inequality....right ... and then he further argues that the parties have a special interest in protecting certain civil and political rights and liberties (they would want to take no chances with freedom of speech and expression and the right to vote, for example) and so he concludes that the parties would choose the two liberal principles of justice as priority to the first... The priority of the first principle means that its requirements have to be fulfilled before we can move onto the second principle.. now coming to your question... it means that people will have same and equal basic rights. ..and the second principle is designed to provide equality of opportunity by making sure that any inequalities are in everyone’s interests... you will understand once you complete the lessons on justice and also the readings mentioned at last... I am always there to sort out any confusion you have...regarding this
All i can say... Its Complicated!!
a year ago
Not actually's just that his two principles are useless...after understanding the concept... just learn the two principles...
Yeah u wrote exactly what I wanted to say... I found his theory totally impractical, non sense and irrelevant.
a year ago
poverty rate in US 14%
a year ago
yeah it's around 12-13% . thanks.

  1. The Case of Justice

  2. Rawls: Justice as fairness o John Rawls wrote two big books - A Theory of Justice (1971), followed by Political Liberalism (1993) (trust me aur c ha O The ideas at the heart of Rawls's theory of justice, which he calls justice as fairness, are the original position and the veil of ignorance. O He imagines people choosing principles in an original position, behind veil of ignorance O Rawls asks us to imagine, What would happen if people deprived of all knowledge that might serve to distinguish them from one another how clever they are, whether they are Christian, Muslim or atheist - were to get together and decide how they wanted their society to be organized. 6

  3. People in Original Position, don't know two things O First, they are ignorant of their talents - their natural endowments - and their social position. O Second, they don't know their conception of the good. They don't know what makes life valuable or what is worthwhile. 7

  4. Some things which they know O They know, 'the capacity to frame, revise and pursue a conception of the good O And they know that, to exercise that capacity, they need certain all-purpose goods, i.e 'primary goods': Such as liberties, opportunities, powers, income and wealth, self-respect. 8

  5. Rawl's explanation of 'Original Position O It is a way of representing particular claims about how we should think about justice. Rawls's idea is that it models fair conditions by abstracting from people's natural endowments and social (class) position, and from their particular conceptions of the good. O It models conditions under which people solely regarded as free and equal are to agree on fair terms of social cooperation. O Society, for Rawls, should be understood as a fair scheme of cooperation between free and equal citizens, and the original position models/represents that understanding O He asks us to, what distributive principles you would have reason to endorse if you didn't know who you were, there by thinking of 9yourself and your fellow citizens as equals.

  6. The principle which Rawls think people behind the veil of ignorance would choose are :- 1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all 2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity (1) Has priority over (2) And 2(b) > 2(a) 10

  7. Would people in the original position really choose these principles? Pause Think-and then Listern and then Listen..