BERNABE: GOOD MORNING PHILIPPINES!

Its already 9:03 in the morning, January 23,2022 I am John wendel bernabe

You are tuning into....

DZMN RADIO EXPRESS

Hope you had your delicious breakfast

Here is the round down of top hot topics at this hour, starting with

JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS

AN EVALUATION OF RAWLS PRINCIPLE

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

STATE AND CITEZEN RESPONSIBILTY: TAXATION AND INCLUSIVE GROWTH

BERNABE: for Justice and Fairness, Miss Smilela Gonzales from you

GONZALES: Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms,
giving each person his or her due. Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are often today
used interchangeably. However, also been more distinct understandings of the two terms.

Justice usually has been used with reference to a standard of rightness, fairness often has been used
with regard to an ability to judge without reference to one’s feelings or interests

While fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to make judgments that are not overly general
but that are concrete and specific to a particular case. In any case, a notion of being treated as one
deserves is crucial to both justice and fairness.

BERNABE: WHO IS JOHN RAWLS?

John Rawls was born on 1921 and died on 2002 he was an American political philosopher in the liberal
tradition. His theory of justice as fairness describes a society of free citizens holding equal basic rights
and cooperating within an egalitarian economic system.

BERNABE: WHAT ABOUT HIS CONCEPT?

Rawls called his concept of social justice “Justice as Fairness.” It consists of two principles. Since he first
published A Theory of Justice, he changed the wording of these principles several times. He published
his last version in 2001.

The First Principle of social justice concerns with political institutions:

Like each person has the same and indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties,
which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all.
This principle means that everyone has the same basic liberties, which can never be taken away. Rawls
included most of the liberties in the U.S. Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech and due process of
law. He added some liberties from the broader area of human rights, like freedom of travel.

In addition,

Rawls recognized the right of private individuals, corporations, or workers to own private property. But
he omitted the right to own the “means of production” (e.g., mines, factories, farms). He also left out
the right to inherit wealth. These things were not basic liberties in his view.

Another from Rawls,

Rawls agreed that basic liberties could be limited, but “only for the sake of liberty.” Thus, curbing the
liberties of an intolerant group that intended to harm the liberties of others may be justified.

BERNABE: THANKYOU MISS SMILELA GONZALES, NOW LETS GO ON TO THE SECOND PRINCIPLE

AND LETS HEAR IT FROM MR LORENZ MACARIO

MACARIO: The Second Principle of social justice concerns social and economic institutions:

Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:

First, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity; and

Second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the
Difference Principle).

This Second Principle focused on equality. Rawls realized that a society could not avoid inequalities
among its people. Inequalities result from such things as one’s inherited characteristics, social class,
personal motivation, and even luck. Even so, Rawls insisted that a just society should find ways to
reduce inequalities in areas where it can act.

By “offices and positions” in his Second Principle, Rawls meant especially the best jobs in private
business and public employment. He said that these jobs should be “open” to everyone by the society
providing “fair equality of opportunity.” One way for a society to do this would be to eliminate
discrimination. Another way would be to provide everyone easy access to education.

BERNABE: THANKYOU MR. LORENZ MACARIO, NOW LETS TALK ABOUT THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL
ELEMENT OF RAWLS SOCIAL JUSTICE THEORY! MISS SMILELA GONZALES, CAN YOU SHARE THE
CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENT TO US?

GONZALES: Yes sure, the most controversial element of his theory of social justice was his Difference
Principle. He first defined it in a 1968 essay. All differences in wealth and income, all social and
economic inequalities,” he wrote, “should work for the good of the least favoured.”

Later, when he wrote A Theory of Justice, he used the phrase, “least-advantaged members of society” to
refer to those at the bottom of economic ladder. These might be unskilled individuals, earning the
lowest wages in the society.
Under the Difference Principle, Rawls favoured maximizing the improvement of the “least-advantaged”
group in society. He would do this not only by providing “fair equality of opportunity,” but also by such
possible ways as a guaranteed minimum income or minimum wage (his preference). Rawls agreed that
this Difference Principle gave his theory of social justice a liberal character.

Furthermore,

Rawls ranked his principles of social justice in the order of their priority. The First Principle (“basic
liberties”) holds priority over the Second Principle. The first part of the Second Principle (“fair equality of
opportunity”) holds priority over the second part (Difference Principle). But he believed that both the
First and Second Principles together are necessary for a just society.

BERNABE: WHAT ABOUT THE CRITICISM OF RAWLS? MISS JOSSIE AQUINO LETS HAER IT FROM YOU!

AQUINO: Criticism of Rawls

Some critics argued that Rawls’ Justice as Fairness principles did not allow enough tolerance for
different religious and strongly held beliefs. If, for example, people belong to a religion that teaches men
and women are unequal in certain parts of life, those beliefs would contradict Rawls’ principles about
equality of basic liberties and equal opportunity.

The most controversial part of Rawls’ theory of justice centered on his Difference Principle, the idea that
the greatest benefit should go to the least advantaged. Conservative and free-market critics argued that
it is unfair to take from the most advantaged people what they have earned and redistribute it for the
benefit of the less fortunate. They also argued that explanations for how people come to be in more or
less advantaged positions is relevant to fairness. For example, some people deserve a higher level of
material goods because of their hard work or contributions to society.

Rawls himself acknowledged that his vision for a just society was “highly idealized.” He also admitted
that there was little support for his Difference Principle “in our public culture at the present time.” Rawls
responded to his critics by re-thinking and revising elements of his theory.

Even after he retired in 1991, Rawls wrote other books on political philosophy, international justice, and
human rights. But he never really finished A Theory of Justice. He considered it a work in progress up to
his death at age 81 in 2002.

BERNABE: For Distributive justice let’s hear it from Miss Sarah Rebordaos

REBORDAOS: DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

Distributive justice is concerned with the fair distribution of the burdens and benefits of social
cooperation among diverse persons with competing needs and claims.

A theory of distributive justice must set out an account of political justification specifying the weight to
be assigned to various kinds of relevant considerations and providing an acceptable description of the
standpoint from which judgments are formed.
The theory must employ these resources to justify an account of a just distribution of social goods,
determining, in the process, the priority to be assigned to considerations such as claims of right,
entitlement, efficiency, equality, fairness, and community.

BERNABE: HELLO MISS SARAH, WHAT ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE?

REBORDAOS: Principles of distributive justice are therefore best thought of as providing moral guidance
for the political processes and structures that affect the distribution of benefits and burdens in societies,
and any principles which do offer this kind of moral guidance on distribution, regardless of the
terminology they employ, should be considered principles of distributive justice.

The first relatively simple principle of distributive justice examined is Strict Egalitarianism

Strict Egalitarianism is One of the simplest principles of distributive justice is that of strict, or radical,
equality. The principle says that every person should have the same level of material goods (including
burdens) and services. The principle is most commonly justified on the grounds that people are morally
equal and that equality in material goods and services is the best way to give effect to this moral ideal.

next

The difference Principles

The wealth of an economy is not a fixed amount from one period to the next, but can be influenced by
many factors relevant to economic growth. These include, for example, technological advancement or
changes in policy that affect how much people are able to produce with their labour and resources.
More wealth can be produced and indeed this has been the overwhelming feature of industrialized
countries over the last couple of centuries. The dominant economic view is that wealth is most readily
increased in systems where those who are more productive earn greater incomes. This economic view
partly inspired the formulation of the Difference Principle.

next

Equality of Opportunity and Luck Egalitarianism

The distribution of material goods and services is not the only economic distribution which is important
to people. The distribution of opportunities is also important. As noted in the previous section, John
Rawls conjoined his Difference Principle with a principle of equality of opportunity. Endorsement of
some form of equality of opportunity is very prevalent among distributive justice theorists and, indeed,
among the general population, especially when combined with some form of market distributive
mechanism. Equality of opportunity is often contrasted favourably with ‘equality of outcome’ or strict
egalitarianism, by those who believe that we can show equal concern, respect, or treatment of people
without them having the same material goods and services, so long as they have equal economic
opportunities.

Next

Welfare-Based Principles

Welfare-based principles are motivated by the idea that what is of primary moral importance is the level
of welfare of people. Advocates of welfare-based principles view the concerns of other theories—
material equality, the level of primary goods of the least advantaged, resources, desert-claims, or
liberty—as derivative concerns.

Next

Desert-Based Principles

Another complaint against welfarism is that it ignores, and in fact cannot even make sense of, claims
that people deserve certain economic benefits in light of their actions. The complaint is often motivated
by the concern that various forms of welfarism treat people as mere containers for well-being, rather
than purposeful beings, responsible for their actions and creative in their environments.

Next

Libertarian Principles

libertarian distributive principles rarely see the market as a means to some desired pattern, since the
principle(s) they advocate do not ostensibly propose a ‘pattern’ at all, but instead describe the sorts of
acquisitions or exchanges which are just in their own right. The market will be just, not as a means to
some pattern, but insofar as the exchanges permitted in the market satisfy the conditions of just
acquisition and exchange described by the principles.

Next

Feminist Principles

There is no one feminist conception of distributive justice; feminists defend positions across the political
spectrum. Hence, feminists offer distinctive versions of all the theories considered so far as well as
others. One way of thinking about what unifies many feminist theorists is an interest in what difference,
if any, the practical experience of gender makes to the subject matter or study of justice.

BERNABE: THANKYOU MISS SARAH REBORDAOS

*****************

BREAKING NEWS

State and Citizens Responsibility: Taxation and Inclusive growth

BERNABE: Taxation is fundamental to sustainable development: it supports the basic functions of an

effective state and sets the context for economic growth. However, there is another role for taxation
that is often overlooked – as a catalyst for more responsive and accountable Governments, and for
expanding state capacity.

In the literature of public finance, taxes have been classified in various ways according to who pays for
them, who bears the ultimate burden of them, the extent to which the burden can be shifted, and
various other criteria. Taxes are most commonly classified as either direct or indirect

Direct taxes are primarily taxes on natural persons (e.g., individuals), and they are typically based on the
taxpayer’s ability to pay as measured by income, consumption, or net wealth.
While, Indirect taxes are levied on the production or consumption of goods and services or on
transactions, including imports and exports. Examples include general and selective sales taxes, value-
added taxes (VAT), taxes on any aspect of manufacturing or production, taxes on legal transactions, and
customs or import duties.

Why Taxation from Citizens and State matter?

To foster economic growth and development, governments need sustainable sources of funding for
social programs and public investments. Programs providing health, education, infrastructure and other
services are important to achieve the common goal of a prosperous, functional and orderly society. And
they require that governments raise revenues. Taxation not only pays for public goods and services; it is
also a key ingredient in the social contract between citizens and the economy.

How taxation improve Governance

One of the ways in which taxation can improve governance is by developing the state apparatus.
Improvements in tax administration can lead to broader improvements in state capacity by means of:
administrative innovations that can spread through the civil service; pressure for improvements in other
agencies; an enhanced government presence in remote areas; and by providing data and information
essential to other government activities.

THANKYOU FOR LISTENING, AGAIN THIS IS DZMN RADIO EXPRESS