SJS term paper
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of British Columbia *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
101
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
9
Uploaded by DukeIceStingray31
Richard Shaw Which theoretical approaches do you think are most relevant to contemporary social justice and equity issues? Summarize the key elements of one of the theories you have learned about in the
course and explain why it is still important for understanding a contemporary topic for social justice
Utilitarianism was an approach to equality that replaced the prior system of hedonism, a system that advocated for one to seek pleasure, where seeking pleasure is the only way live one’s life. However, a complication of hedonism was that it impedes on other peoples' liberties, in the sense
that those who find pleasure in murdering, stealing, etc. may rationalize murdering or stealing from others as it pleasures them. However, utilitarianism aimed to correct the shortcomings of hedonism by incorporating the desires of others and their lives with the principle of maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number. (Mill, 2020). A well-known advocate of utilitarianism was John Stuart Mills, where he believed that a society may thrive by acquiring the greatest good
for the greatest number, for instance if a group was attending a celebratory event, utilitarianism would suggest that one create greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, even at the expense of those who may not be a part of those happy, the aim is to create the most happiness. (Mill, 2020). In contrast, utilitarianism may rationalize the use of slavery or exploitation by those
being exploited creating the ‘happiness’ are unable to sway the happiness of the greatest number as they are the ones creating the ‘happiness.’ Of which, John Rawls indicated how the
shortcomings of utilitarianism was inadequate and developed his perspective that was more inclusive. (
Introduction to Rawls: A theory of justice
2020).
In “Social Justice” by Madison Powers, it discussed the Rawlsian approach of a just and equal society. John Rawls recognized the number of inequalities that many face within a society, such as those born into bad neighborhoods, in lower income families, or inadequate schooling would not have the same opportunities as those with a high-income family or adequate schooling. Of which Rawls also recognized many were not explicitly aware of how some face inequalities that prevent them from having the same opportunities as those in an advantaged position and in order to solve the inequalities recognizing the presence of it is necessary to begin challenging it. Rawls
developed the “Veil of Ignorance” (
Introduction to Rawls: A theory of justice
2020). as a way to combat the help identify the advantages and disadvantages people have, where those in a privileged position may learn how those in a less favourable position do not have the same access to the same opportunities as others. (Powers, 2014). One of the steps of the Veil of Ignorance is to ask a person in a society if they are willing to choose to live in a society, even when there is a chance of being placed in a less favourable position like poor education or being born into a bad neighborhood, with the aim to indicate how some are subject to less opportunities, an inequality that certain groups and individuals may not have a choice of having an exceptional life where they may have the same opportunity as others. After recognizing the inequalities, the process of fixing the problems may take place. Rawls developed a principle to ensure the worst-off members of society obtain the same opportunities as one another, where the re-allocation of resources is directed towards the worst-off members to help achieve a just and equal society by ensuring that those living in a society have the same opportunities. (Powers, 2014).
Under the veil of ignorance, Rawls considers several different approaches to create a just or equal society. The first being Utilitarianism, which Rawls would reject because it does not carry the virtues of a just society considering it can rationalize the use of slaves or exploiting individuals, in a society that uses utilitarianism as a distributive method or principle, the intention may mean well by aiming to create the greatest good for the greatest number is an exceptional principle, but it does carry a flaw of justifying exploitation, when a society is benefiting from the exploited, under the assumption that the exploited are a minority or marginalized, they cannot swing the vote of the greatest good for the greatest number because they are producing the good for those in the majority. (
Introduction to Rawls: A theory of justice
2020).
Another approach is libertarianism, where one is born into a society with two “assets,” (
Introduction to Rawls: A theory of justice
2020). one being the natural talents one has and the assets one may inherit, whether it is family wealth, education of parents, etc. all of which is attributable good fortune or an accident, which may seem fair and just but when considering those who inherit wealth or get lucky with abundance of wealth, opportunities, etc. Are subject to
it, whereas those with the opposite, those who are unlucky and do not have the same opportunities are subject to less than those who are lucky. (
Introduction to Rawls: A theory of justice
2020). Later on, liberals would develop the basic liberties to counteract the disadvantage, with the creation of equality of opportunity. (
Introduction to Rawls: A theory of justice
2020). However, Rawls would also reject libertarianism because of the disadvantages. Another approach is egalitarianism, with the principle of equality of outcome, which equates to treating everyone equally, without any biases or prejudices, however, on the basis that egalitarianism would not promote hard work, Rawls would reject this approach. The last approach was Rawls’
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
idea of the distribution principle, where the Veil of Ignorance would influence people to create a society with more of what Rawls calls “Primary good,” (
Introduction to Rawls: A theory of justice
2020). which relates to liberties, opportunities, rights, power, etc., with a focus on creating the most just and equal society by ensuring that everyone within the society acquires more of the primary goods, even when there are inequalities, creating a society where everyone is better off is the fundamental idea. Moreover, Rawls addresses those who acquire particular skills or advantages by working for it are just and fair to utilize such skills, only when the use of the skills better oneself and the idea of
a greater goal of those who are worst off, meaning that it is okay to use skills that better a person in a better position than those in the worst off as long as the person using the skill indicates that there are ways to better their position by acquiring skills that may better them. (Powers, 2014). All of which encapsulates the idea of benefiting the worst-off members of society, ensuring to level the playing field, so that everyone has a fair and equal chance to succeed and have opportunities. (Powers, 2014). Moreover, Rawls asserts that the people who distribute resources, government and public institutions, should direct the resources to the least advantaged, another approach of ensuring the worst-off members are given a fair and equal chance in a just society. (Powers, 2014). John Rawls’ approach is aimed to making an equal society where those living in a just society have the same chance of opportunities, without any forms of biases or unchosen barriers that may prevent one from an opportunity, with the veil of ignorance the potential to create such a society is achievable, by indicating the inequalities and counteracting them to approach the destined goal of equality and justice.
When applying a Rawlsian approach to distributing resources to Indigenous Peoples, a group who are a marginalized group or a part of the “worst-off” (Powers, 2014). may be an aim of
distributing the resources towards them to level the playing field. In which the distributors may use resources such education or direct complications Indigenous Peoples may be facing to reduce
the burden, where the resources provided to Indigenous Peoples may allow for more opportunities. (Powers, 2014). Further, education as another approach of combating inequalities is another approach those in distributive positions may use by implementing policies or requirements of complications that Indigenous Peoples may face may help alleviate the pressures
of those engaging with the complications for Indigenous Peoples. (Powers, 2014). For instance, many Indigenous Peoples face is obesity that can have certain complications with regard to health, which has been recognized by some medical institutions, who have people directly working to help Indigenous Peoples combat obesity and placed policies to indicate the complications Indigenous Peoples face. (Reimer-Kirkham & Browne, 2017). Some of the direct work involves educating groups of Indigenous Peoples about certain aspects of obesity as a way to support Indigenous Peoples deal with obesity. (Reimer-Kirkham & Browne, 2017). The second application is through implementing polices in medical institutions, like healthcare centres and medical schools altering materials that include the complications Indigenous Peoples face, as a way to direct resources towards Indigenous Peoples. (Reimer-Kirkham & Browne, 2017).
In contrast, the application of the Rawlsian theory comes with certain complications and limitations in distributing resources. Even as the Rawlsian approach has high potential for achieving a just and equal society it has some flaws, one of the criticisms being that some inequalities are systemically caused, where re-allocating resources towards the worst-off members may equate to a limited amount of success in achieving equality since the resources may continue to feed into the system that creates the inequalities. (Powers, 2014). An
amendment of identifying any systemic productions of inequalities to the Rawlsian approach may allow those wanting a just and equal society to achieve their desired goals by recognizing the inequalities that certain groups may face and address it accordingly by eliminating the “root causes.” (Powers, 2014). Moreover, those who use a Rawlsian approach or an approach similar, may have good intentions but they may feed into the production of inequalities, such as the medical institutions who have policies addressing the complication Indigenous Peoples face and implementing policies in materials taught in medical institutions can create pre-conceived notions about those addressed in the policies or materials. (Reimer-Kirkham & Browne, 2017).
Additionally, in “Toward a critical theoretical interpretation of Social Justice Discourses in nursing” (Reimer-Kirkham & Browne, 2017). Reimer-Kirkham and Browne discuss intersectionality, an approach that indicates how some people take on certain advantages in one or various sections and others may not share the same advantages. An illustration being the materials in medical institutions not including historical contexts or events that impacted Indigenous Peoples mental health. (Reimer-Kirkham & Browne, 2017). Moreover, the use of an intersectional approach may address certain notions that surround Indigenous Peoples, specifically systems aimed to impact Indigenous Peoples’ mental health, which has impacted many Indigenous Peoples directly and indirectly. (Reimer-Kirkham & Browne, 2017). Further, without an intersectional approach, the interpretations of the cause of the impacts on Indigenous Peoples is left open, one of the interpretations is “poor individual choices” (Reimer-Kirkham & Browne, 2017). is a result of mental health impacts, another is “flawed social communities,” (Reimer-Kirkham & Browne, 2017). both of which do not recognize the systemic and historical impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ mental health. Additionally, some pre-conceived notions surrounding Indigenous Peoples also play a factor of the distribution of resources. The
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
willingness to aid an Indigenous person can be biased by “English fluency or paying taxes” (Reimer-Kirkham & Browne, 2017). as a factor to not distributing resources to Indigenous Peoples. With an intersectional approach such notions can be dismissed and properly addressed with accordance to historical and systemic causes of inequalities. All of which indicates how adding an intersectional approach can improve John Rawls’ theory of justice. Furthermore, the political contexts and a hegemonic process may influence the ideas of what is just and fair in contemporary political context. (Reimer-Kirkham & Browne, 2017). Those in power at a certain time can implement their ideas of fairness or what is a just society relies on what side of the political spectrum one is on and how that alters the widespread idea of the approach to fairness and how hegemony may alter the thinking of the population by developing their ideological interpretations of fairness into the vast population as ‘their’ own interpretation of fairness. (Lull, 1995). As was indicated by James Lull in “Hegemony” how hegemony is a key
component to how one may obtain and maintain power, of which was developing an idea or ideology of their own and producing it within a society with aims those would recognize those ideologies as their own. (Lull, 1995). With social media the utilization of hegemony can be maximized, those aiming to acquire power or obtain power may reproduce their ideas in education, businesses, political organizations, and so on by creating the “status quo” (Lull, 1995). and maintaining it. Of which demonstrates how reaching equality, or a just society is more difficult when those in power have implemented their ideas of equality into individuals, thus making the idea of equality as their own idea, making other ideas of equality foreign and complex to comprehend considering it would disrupt the idea of maintaining the “status quo.” (Lull, 1995). Even as some may not be indoctrinated into the hegemonic process, maintaining the
status quo may overpower those who desire to acquire their interpretations of a just and equal
society. As illustrated in “Toward Critical Theoretical Interpretation of Social Justices Discourses in Nursing” those in power in British Columbia, Canada have cut back on funding to social programs, such as social welfare for single mothers that created more poverty among many of those in social programs, making more complications on redistributing resources to those in need of medical attention, indicating how certain political ideologies may see cutting back in spending on social programs as a way to approach a just and equal society. (Reimer-
Kirkham & Browne, 2017).
All in all, John Rawls’ theory of justice and how to approach a just and equal society is a well-
developed approach, but with some amendments may improve the shortcomings of the Rawlsian approach. Even as Rawls developed an ideal way to create a just and equal society through the Veil of Ignorance, which identified how some may be biased, to indicate certain groups or people who do not have the access to the same opportunities as one another. Thereafter may allow for correction to such inequalities by redistributing resources so they may have an equal chance for the same opportunities. However, some critics have indicated how certain inequalities
are systemically caused, which was not addressed by Rawls, so modifying Rawls’ approach by mixing it with an intersectional approach that may allow for the proper addressing of the causes. Additionally, adding an intersectional approach creates more benefits by not only indicating the creations of systemic inequalities, but also demonstrating how those in power may alter the idea of a just or equal society with a hegemonic process and with those in power having their interpretations of a just society instilled in the vast population allows for them to put in motion their plans of obtaining a just society. All of which indicates how a Rawlsian approach, with
some modifications, is applicable to contemporary society and demonstrates how the high potential for a just and equal society is achievable.
References
Lull, J. (1995). Hegemony. Columbia University Press
. Mill, J. S. (2020, December 25). Utilitarianism
. The Project Gutenberg eBook of Utilitarianism, by John Stuart Mill. Retrieved March 2023, from https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/11224/pg11224-images.html#CHAPTER_I
Powers, M. (2014). Social Justice
. Gale Cengage Learning. Retrieved March 2023, from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do
? id=GALE
%7CCX3727400596&v=2.1&u=wash43584&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=8567fa038e21
893d49dad63c40ff4d29 Reimer-Kirkham, S., & Browne, A. J. (2017, October 17). Toward a critical theoretical interpretation of Social Justice Discourses in nursing
. ANS. Advances in nursing science. Retrieved March 2023, from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17135801/
YouTube. (2020, July 2). Introduction to Rawls: A theory of justice
. YouTube. Retrieved March 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6k08C699zI&t=653s
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help