John Rawls

John Rawls, was bron in February 21, 1921, and died in November 24, 2002. He was an American philosopher and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy.

Rawls received the Schock Prize for Logic and Philosophy and the National Humanities Medal in 1999, the latter presented by President Bill Clinton, in recognition of how Rawls’s thought “helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself.

Rawls is noted for his contributions to liberal political philosophy. A Theory of Justice in 1971, is it the main work!
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to reconcile liberty and equality in a principled way, offering an account of “justice as fairness.” Central to this effort is his famous approach to the seemingly intractable problem of distributive justice!

Rawls appeals to the social contract. What principles of justice would we agree to if we desired to cooperate with others, but would also prefer more of the benefits, and less of the burdens, associated with cooperation? Justice as fairness is thus offered to people who are neither saintly altruists nor greedy egoists. Human beings are, as Rawls puts it, both rational and reasonable.
Because we are rational we have ends we want to achieve, but we are reasonable insofar as we are happy to achieve these ends together if we can, in accord with mutually acceptable regulative principles. But given how different our needs and aspirations often are, how can we find principles that are acceptable to each of us? Rawls gives us a model of a fair situation for making this choice (his argument from the original position and the famous veil of ignorance), and he argues that two principles of justice would be especially attractive.

We would, Rawls argues, affirm a principle of equal basic liberties, thus protecting the familiar liberal freedoms of conscience, association, expression, and the like (included here is a right to hold and use personal property, but Rawls defends that right in terms of our moral capacities and self-respect,[4] not by appeal to a natural right of self-ownership, thus distinguishing his account from the classical liberalism of John Locke, and the libertarian stance of Robert Nozick). But we would also want to ensure that, whatever our station in society, liberties represent meaningful options for us. For example, formal guarantees of political voice and freedom of assembly are of little real worth to the desperately poor and marginalized in society. Demanding that everyone have exactly the same effective opportunities in life is a non-starter: achieving this would almost certainly offend the very liberties that are supposedly being equalized. Nonetheless, we would want to ensure at least the “fair worth” of our liberties: wherever one ends up in society, one wants life to be worth living, with enough effective freedom to pursue personal goals. Thus we would be moved to affirm a second principle requiring fair equality of opportunity, paired with the famous (and controversial) difference principle. This second principle ensures that those with comparable talents and motivation face roughly similar life chances, and that inequalities in society work to the benefit of the least advantaged.

Rawls held that these principles of justice apply to the “basic structure” of fundamental social institutions (courts, markets, the constitution, etc), a qualification that has been the source of some controversy and constructive debate (see, for instance, the important work of Gerald Cohen). Rawls further argued that these principles were to be lexically ordered, thus giving priority to basic liberties over the more equality-oriented demands of the second principle. This has also been a topic of much debate among moral and political philosophers. Finally, Rawls took his approach as applying in the first instance to what he called a “well-ordered society … designed to advance the good of its members and effectively regulated by a public conception of justice”. [5] In this respect, he understood justice as fairness as a contribution to “ideal theory,” working “out principles that characterize a well-ordered society under favorable circumstances” [6] Much recent work in political philosophy has asked what justice as fairness might dictate (or indeed, whether it is very useful at all) for problems of “partial compliance” under “nonideal theory.” Does Rawls’s theory tell us much that is useful about what we should do in societies already characterized by profound injustices, deep distrust, material deprivation, and the like?

Do you agree with this ideas?
TELL US
sharing with the world your opinion!

Assisted Suicide

Hello there,

As promised to my dear work colleague, in my future posts, I will write down and underline some sentences of an article about Assisted Suicide, written by american philosophers (whoever is interest can read it at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1237 ).

Undoubtedly, it is a fracturing subject of our society.
Yes or No to Assisted Suicide?
In order to establish a possible dialogue about it, i’ll point out one argument of each side:

Yes: “In a free society, individuals must be allowed to make those decisions for themselves, out of their own faith, conscience and convictions”.

No: “it would be impossible to limit a right to assisted suicide in an acceptable way, once that right was recognized”.

‘Till further considerations,
Bes

Franz Kafka

kafka's House

Kafka's House

Franz Kafka was born in Prague, July 3, 1883 into a middle-class Jewish family and was one of the greatest writers of fiction in German language of the twentieth century!

Graduated in Law in 1906, worked as a lawyer in principle particular company “Assicurazioni Generali” and then in the semi-State Institute for Insurance against Occupational Accidents.

Solitary with the affective life marked by frustration and irresoluções, Kafka never achieved fame or fortune on your books, mostly published posthumously.

Still was respected in the circles of literature that attended!

The book that marked me as a lawyer, date of 1925 and is called

“The Process”

The Process is a story of Josef K., a character who wake up in the morning, and wtih no known reason, is arrested and subjected to long and hard process for a crime not disclosed.

The figure of Josef K. is the paradigm of the persecution that ignores the real causes of their persecution, and that stick only to allegorical and misleading evidence resulting from various sources!

Kafka portrayed an authoritarianism of Justice whcih has the power in their hands to condemn someone without offer means of defense, or at least knowledge of the reasons for punishment.

However we can take a picture of Josef K. and of his accusers, to various fields of life, particularly at work (who was never charged or prosecuted without their accusers said that it would be negligent?) at school (who is never seen as Josef K., to be criticized for their performance, without knowing where it had failed?

All the writing of Kafka is marked by its tone impartial, attentive to the smallest detail, and covering the themes of alienation and persecution.

Their stories are judged as true and realistic, in touch with the man of the XXI century, since the characters kafkanianos suffer from existential conflict, as the man of today.

In Kafkaniano’s world, the characters, do not know which direction they should take, unaware of the goals of your life, seriously questioning the existence and end up alone, facing a situation that is not planned, because all events are turned against them, not giving them opportunity to take advantage of the situation and, often, even out of this.

So the theme of solitude and escape the paranoia and delusions of influence are closely linked to work kafkiana!

I had the pleasure of visiting the house on Kafka lived during his life! This is a small house located inside the castle in Prague, Czech Republic!

ESP