Ian Nathaniel A.

Balana

Ms. Van Dommelen

HZT 4U

20 January 2022

Historical Showcase: Marx and Rawls

1. In your own words, explain what the bourgeoisie is and how it developed. Does the

bourgeoisie exist today? Explain.

The bourgeoisie is a minority group of middle-class people who took over of the

economic and social dominance after the feudal system. Karl Marx resents the bourgeoisie for

being owners of the means of production in which the proletariat working class works in. Karl

Marx sarcastically praises the bourgeoisies for being the agents of capitalism which brought the

economic exploitation of the majority working class. The rise of bourgeoisies caused the

stripping of honour upon the “noble professions.” Basically, Marx credits the bourgeoisie for

being part of the alienation of people from their work. Forcing the proletariats to work for some

money just to satisfy other’s needs, people and nations have been forced to the capitalistic

economy promoted by the bourgeoisie; thus, they reform the world by making the less

economically advanced one dependent on the more economically advanced one. Although the

bourgeoisie can be credited for the incredible works of advancement in human history they have

made, it was all because of the sacrifices of the working class that caused them to be alienated

from their own work, their own self, and furthermore, their own species. It is possible that the

bourgeoisie class still exists today; however, they must be called with a different name. Abusive

businessmen causing undesired labour and reducing what should be honourable work to a

suffering activity are still present in different parts of the world. In some way, the bourgeoisie
 Balana 2

continue to control the economy, politics, and the society in one way or another. Their increased

influence just allows the culture of alienating work to continue. However, today, most

businessmen, although they can be considered as bourgeoisie for being owners, are more

concerned with the overall well-being of their employees. They make sure that the employees are

not only paid fairly, but they get to enjoy in what they do. Additionally, the bourgeoisie of

Marx’s time is different in a sense that they were allowed to do anything since the law does not

provide any limit. Today, in most parts of the world, the bourgeoisie class is required to follow

the law that is influenced by liberalism in one way or another.

2. To what extent does Marx's concept of alienation apply to modern workers? To what extent

does it apply to college students? How would Marx analyze the contemporary trend toward

careerism among today's college students (that is, the trend to see college education as

preparation for a job or a career instead of as a humanizing and liberating activity.)?

Marx’s concept of alienation still extents to modern workers. The only added clause now

is that modern workers are protected by the law by mandating the minimum wage and maximum

hours of work. Modern workers’ safety and health are also now a concern of businesses. The

only reasons that Marx’s concept of alienation would apply is that some workers still see work as

a way of satisfying other’s needs, such as that of the family, and that the fruits of some workers’

labour are still enjoyed by someone else. Having a negative view on work and less enthusiasm is

something that managers try to mitigate by trying to reach out to the workers with free or

discounted access of their products, or by giving breaks and not being too rigid with their time.

Workers in first-world countries are fortunate for being paid handsomely compared to workers in

third-world countries. However, this still allows the alienation of a worker’s work from
 Balana 3

themselves. It really depends on the person’s disposition on their job. If they consider it as an

unwanted necessity, then it is alienated; otherwise, it is connected to the person.

What truly prevents people from alienation is when they work according to their nature, to what

they really want to do. Some people really desire to work with construction companies, while

others want to become solo artists. However, it is still possible to be alienated from one’s work

even if they love what their job is. A music artist who would only produce radio-friendly songs

would be limited if they would like to express their anger or honesty with music. To prevent

from alienation, or to reconnect to their work, the music artist would continue doing their

passion, which is singing, but to make their work unalienated, they could be honest with the

words they would like to include in songs. A manager would probably stop them, and in this

situation, the manager would have been the cause of alienation.

In relation with college students, Marx’s concept of alienation would be applicable in a

way; however, given that college students would enter a profession they probably want to some

extent, the concept does not fully apply. One is alienated from their work is it is not part of the

worker’s nature. If a college student only went to college because they are forced by the need to

secure their future and their family financially, that student’s work is alienated from them.

However, if the student’s nature or passion is to study a specific college program to reach their

“dream job,” their work is connected and unalienated to them.

Unfortunately, today, colleges are promoted as the means to train one to the workplace –

to secure a job immediately. Marx’s supposed reaction to this would be that this promotion

encourages the students to look at careers as the means to subsistence rather than the means to

fulfillment and freedom. The sense of freedom, according to Marx, can only be found when one

is free from economic exploitation. If college prepares the students to have the skills for jobs,
 Balana 4

Marx might think that this is a way of making the students easily adapt to the “exploitation” by

companies. On the other hand, he might think that preparing students for what they want to really

do is actually preparing them for being more connected to their work. Therefore, this is all based

on the social being of the person determining their choices and decisions. Marx would probably

advertise college as a place to learn and be connected to one’s work by knowing what to do.

This, for him, would justify the existence of job-tailored courses because it allows the students to

connect more than alienate themselves from their work in the present and future.

3. Explain in your own words what Rawls's "original position" is and why it is supposed to show

us the meaning of justice. Do you agree that using the original position is an adequate way of

determining what just requires? Do you think that Rawls's two principles of justice are adequate?

Why?

Rawls’ original position is the beginning of his thought experiment otherwise known as

the “Veil of Ignorance.” He argues that to know what just institutions look like, people must

engage in this kind of thought experiment. Suppose that before forming a society, the people of

that society meet in a large, first meeting called the original position where no one knew

anyone’s position in the society is. No one also knew about what one’s sexuality, gender, health,

social standing, wealth, intelligence, strength, or even race. In this first meeting or original

position, the people are supposed to choose basic laws and principles that will support and

oversee their future society. Rawls claims that by giving the people the same fair starting point,

under the veil of not knowing what they will be (thus, veil of ignorance), no rational person

would choose a principle that favours a certain group, for it is possible that they become a part of

the less advantaged group. Because no one will choose laws that might benefit them and equally,
 Balana 5

by the outcome of natural chance, also discriminate against them, the society will be just as a

result of fair bargains. Rawls thinks that with everyone starting at the original position, where

everyone does not know how they will be advantaged or disadvantaged, but just that they moral

in a sense that they are all rational beings, the sense of justice of humans is revealed. In this,

“initial status quo” where everything is fair, it could be concluded that the principles decided

upon would be fair too; therefore, what is just must initially be founded upon what is fair.

I agree with Rawls in that the original position would be an adequate way to determine

what is just. As Rawls reasoned, in order to build a just society with just principles, the society

must start first with a status quo where everyone is the same in terms of opportunities and

possible futures. In the real world, humans do not get to meet before they are born into the world;

therefore, in an imaginary one, this method would prove useful. The only “loophole” in this train

of thought is that the people thinking about it must be rational already because if not, then the

whole experiment would fall apart. The choosing certain just laws would prove to be quite a

time-consuming activity in a meeting; however, since we cannot test everything, Rawls assumes

that everything boils down to two principles: that there must be equality in assigning the basic

rights and liberties, and that any inequality must benefit and be open to everyone, especially the

disadvantages parts of the society. These two principles that Rawls found, I think, are very

adequate principles to determine the justice in laws and social systems. If, in a society, every has

equal access to the basic rights and liberties no matter their differences, it would produce just

laws which would allow everyone to have certain and necessary opportunities in life, but also

allows the society to be able to have a lot of social mobility based on the people’s works and

decisions. The second principle is very adequate because it factors in the inequalities that would

arise in a society. If the inequalities would be considered just only if it benefits everyone, it will
 Balana 6

only continue the inequalities in the society. However, if the inequalities would especially

benefit the more disadvantaged persons of the society, there would be equity as this system of

social thought would try to bring back everyone’s position into the first and fair original position.

Thus, the result of these two principles are laws that ultimately try to be just by upholding

fairness or aiming to return the fair standing just as in the original position.

4. How do Rawls's views about society differ from Marx's? What assumptions do you think

Marx and Rawls make that lead each of them to such different conclusions?

Rawls’ views about society greatly differ from Marx’s so much so that they are at the

opposite ends of the gradient. Rawls’ views are characterized by the aim for true justice in the

society based on the two principles that would be decided by people if we were all to start life

with a fair and just original position where we can choose the society’s principles but not what

we become. Marx’s views are more focused on aiming for the ultimate freedom based on Marx,

which is freedom from economic exploitation. Marx reasons that because of the unjust and

extensive abuse of the working majority by the rich minority, most people’s work is alienated

from themselves. The concept of alienation from work applies when the person works against

their nature or passions and only sees work not as a humanizing and ennobling action of

satisfying and fulfilling themselves, but rather, as a cruel and an unwanted necessity that satisfies

the needs of others either by paying up to one’s landlord, making products for the needs of

customers, or putting food on the table for the family. Marx also focuses on how people come to

be like this by arguing that it is by economics that they have become unfree. Marx suggests that

the capitalistic view of the bourgeoisie or the middle class would not continue to suffice and

survive for one day, people would become communists in hopes of enjoying the fruits of their
 Balana 7

own labours. Rawls, on the other hand, does not really focus on what kind of government or who

is responsible for the injustices in the society; however, he focused on finding the basic

principles which could be seen as the guiding principles of a liberal society. If the liberal society

is based upon a fair and just beginning, continue with rules that give the same equal rights to all

people, and allow only just inequalities (inequalities open to all but that ultimately benefits the

poor) to continue, not only does it allow a society where one does not need to share everything,

but also a society founded on justice where freedom and political equality are at the forefront.

Rawls also argues that utilitarianism should not and would not yield a just society where the a

few people would suffer for the net benefit of the majority. Marx argues that the means of

production, usually owned by the bourgeoisie and aristocrats, must be nationalized. He found

this argument upon the reason that the bourgeoisie reap the fruits of labour of the workers and

prevent them from enjoying work. This would lead to another inequality which tries to defy and

devalue the conditions given through birth. This also prevents free trade or even owning property

which, in a way, also forces someone not to do something that would be part of one’s nature. In

brief, Marx’s views argue that the society must work together to achieve fairness and equality,

which is justice, while Rawls’ views argue that the society must base their laws and rules on two

principles that is based on fairness and therefore, would produce just laws and rules.

In terms of assumptions, Marx and Rawls had a lot. Firstly, the historical assumptions

and different situations would account to how Marx and Rawls probably saw the society and its

needs for justice. Secondly, they generalized a lot in their theories. For Marx, he assumed that all

workers feel the same and that one day, they would unite and rise under a communist spirit. He

also assumed that the true sense of freedom is only that from economic exploitation. Marx

forgets that although people find work unfulfilling, they consider helping their family fulfilling.
 Balana 8

For Rawls, he assumes that the society will be rational enough to create such laws which would

prevent others from being too disadvantage. He also assumes that people would want to protect

their self-interest, and by it, the people would decide based on the circumstances of people from

both ends. Rawls also assumes that the government or state must be the giver of political

equality; however, it must not interfere with the people in terms of their decisions and trade

unless they need to offset the inequality.

5. What do you think Rawls would say about the justice or injustice of making pornography

illegal? About making drugs such as marijuana and cocaine illegal? About nationalizing

businesses? About the international problem of poverty?

Rawls would always comment on the justice or injustice of these things rooted in the

concept that everyone starts fair and equal, and to sustain this while not also try to control what

birth and natural chance gave, Rawls would offer to base his comment on his two principles of

equal assignment of basic liberties and rights and inequalities that must be open and beneficial to

everyone, especially to the least advantaged.

On making pornography illegal, Rawls would think about this in a way that it is unjust to

limit a person of their work based on their qualities. However, Rawls would also probably argue

that pornography is immoral; thus, it does not show that human beings are rational. But based on

Rawls’ views of the needs of justice, there must be freedom from interference of the State.

Basically, any legalization or illegalization of things would be unjust because it is a way of how

the state interferes with the individual. Illegalizing the possible livelihood of people would be

unjust if they are not provided with welfare programs. Pornographers would only resort to this

job because of disadvantages they feel in the society, such as financial disadvantages. Rawls’
 Balana 9

view would probably be that the government must provide welfare programs to try to bring their

position in the society back to the fair position that everyone has. It may be through

unemployment support or educational drives.

On making drugs like marijuana and cocaine illegal, Rawls would reason that free trade,

though not a must, can exist in a just society. If these substances are illegalized, the government

would limit the free trade of the society, much so with the pornography illegalization. However,

drugs like marijuana and cocaine are drugs which would only promote leisure over work. Drugs

are one of the last resorts of disadvantaged people, not only financial but also psychological and

other aspectual disadvantages. Rawls would comment that the state must work on welfare

programs to help these people if the government were to shut their free trade down because of

moral issues. Although, like in the pornographic issue, it is not very much aligned to the two

principles of justice that requires freedom, if the people decide to do so, the inequality created

must be compensated by another inequality that would benefit them.

Nationalizing business would be directly against the standard of Rawls. Rawls for the

complete opposite of this which is allowing free trade by preventing the state from interfering

with the individuals. Nationalizing business would allow more power to the government than for

the individuals that, as Rawls argued, are ruled by reason. The state must exist to be the

assurance and protector of the disadvantaged in terms of welfare programs and making laws that

are according to the two principles.

On international poverty, Rawls would agree that no one chose to be poor. It is the cause

of natural chances which by birth, remove benefits from parts of the society. This inequality

created by normal cause must be compensated by another inequality which would be open to all,

but especially, focus help the poor. He would also comment that the world government must act
 Balana 10

and offer welfare programs, same with the other scenarios, that would offset the inequality and

would aim to return them to a fair standing as much as possible.