SUS1501 2021

S MATHEBULA, 30704359

ASSIGNMENT 4: FAIR’S FAIR

1. An analysis of the inequality described using John Rawls' two (three) principles in
their correct order (all three principles must be considered);

No, it’s not okay, according to John Rawl’s principes

a) “Greatest Equal Liberty”

It is also my belief that every person in the world has an equal right to a fully
adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme
of liberties for all as Washington said. Most unfortunate people who are living in
vulnerability and poverty might never have the same equality or life experience as
the billionaires of our time such as Bill Gates or Mar Zuckerbeg. Democracy might
seem like we all have the same equal vote but it would be detrimental for one to
believe so.

b) “Equality Of Fair Opportunity”,

Each person’s dream is valid! No matter how big or impossible the dream may seem.
From being a CEO to becoming a President. This means that at the very least,
everyone must have access to equal education irrespective of whether one is born
into a wealthy family or into a poor family. But is a great and sad fact that in our
beautiful country South Africa, people do not have equal opportunities. Poor people
suffer the most. Even people who are not extremely poor in terms of worldly
materials can be deprived or disadvantaged in many other ways. For example, all
post-industrialised countries have citizens who are homeless or socially excluded to
the extent that they cannot fully participate in society. Children with special
educational needs do not always receive the education that sufficiently challenges
and develops them. Another dimension, albeit surprising, is that a large number of
people are functionally illiterate.

c) “The Difference Principle”

According to DP, an inequality in the distribution of wealth or income is unjust

whenever it doesn’t benefit the poorest members of society.” (nmsu). With the riches
the likes of Mark and Bill have in place, people are not benefiting at all. It may seem
like it for example when Bill Gates comes up with vaccines for Africans and calls it
“help” we do know that they make more billions in their accounts while Africans get
nothing! No child deserves to be mining at the age of 10 and be deprived of their
childhood. Why don’t these billionaires donate money for the machines and
equipment needed for such productions?

2. An analysis of the inequality described using John Rawls' veil of ignorance

One way to understand the Veil of Ignorance is to imagine that you are tasked with
cutting up a pizza to share with friends. You will be the last person to take a slice.
Being of sound mind, you want to get the largest possible share, and the only way to
ensure this is to make all the slices the same size. You could cut one huge slice for
yourself and a few tiny ones for your friends, but one of them might take the large
slice and leave you with a meagre share. (Not to mention, your friends won’t think
very highly of you.)

3. Your opinion on the inequality described

I will outline Rawls’s justification for the Veil of Ignorance, raise some potential
challenges for the conclusions he thinks people will reach from behind it, and lastly
consider three criticisms of the Veil of Ignorance as a theoretical device. While these
criticisms differ in their substance, they are united by a common feature: their
scepticism of the way the Veil abstracts from real life in order to reach conclusions
about justice. I’ll conclude that these criticisms have merit; the Veil of Ignorance,
considered by itself, does lead us to ignore the real world too much. However, I’ll
suggest that, at least in their strongest versions, these criticisms miss an important
benefit of the Veil: quite simply, the fact that our own personal concerns and values
can bias our thinking about justice, and that we can make important progress by
considering things from different points of view

4. Your explanation of why you hold this opinion

Rawls opts for equality of basic liberties in the First Principle because he thinks this
is essential for seeing yourself as a moral equal in society. For other Primary Goods,
though, equality is less important. By allowing some inequality, we could make life
better for everyone. If we attach higher salaries to certain jobs, they may attract the
hardest working people, producing greater economic benefits for everyone. The two
parts of Rawls’s second principle of justice set limits on when inequalities are
allowed. Fair equality of opportunity says that positions which bring unequal payoffs
must be open to people of equal talents and equal willingness to use them on an
equal basis. If two people are just as capable of doing a job, and just as hardworking
and willing to apply themselves, neither should have a greater chance of securing
the position because they are wealthier, or because of their race or religion. Of
course, we might wonder (and Rawls does not give a clear answer about this) when
we are supposed to judge whether two people are equally hardworking and talented.
The talents you choose to develop, and the amount of effort you put in, are heavily
affected by education; so it might seem unfair to judge people if they have had very
different educational experiences. Rawls’s argument therefore seems to support
ensuring broad equality of education, encouraging people to find and develop their
talents to the fullest, even if this isn’t a conclusion he explicitly draws.

Finally, the Difference Principle sets a further restriction on inequalities. Even if a

particular inequality does not affect equality of opportunities, the Difference Principle
tells us that it must be beneficial for the very worst off. For instance, it might be that
by allowing inequalities, we motivate people to work harder, generating more
Primary Goods overall. If these then benefit the worst off in society, making them
better off than they would have been in a more equal distribution, the Difference
Principle will allow that inequality.

REFENCES:

WashingtoN. RAWLS'S LIBERTY PRINCIPLE: (washington.edu).

accessed11/09/2017Nmsu, Microsoft Word - 320RawlsDP.doc (nmsu.edu).
accessed 11/09/2017Sen, Amartya K. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.Sen, Amartya K. 2009. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: The Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press.Shin, Laura. 2014. The 85 Richest People in the
World Have as Much Wealth as the 3.5 Billion Poorest. Forbes.