Philosophy Essays on Justice and Fairness
Introduction
For the society to be governed in a proper way there should be justice principles in this society to be able to create an ideal setup. This can only be achieved through coming up with a position where individuals will get all together, reach a common agreement and be able to accept a particular set of rules that will be used to regulate and govern them in their own society. The logic that Rawls’ explains is very simple, try to give some characteristics of individuals to the original position and even the conditions with which they have to make their own decisions. Therefore, any of the principles they chose will be deemed fair, hence they will also be just. For that reason, Rawls clarifies about thinking in an enlightened manner, the way of having a very hypothetical agreement for a social contract, bringing out his own idea that justice should be captured in terms of fairness (Solomon et al. 543). This essay is going to give a clear presentation about the theory of John Rawls which is basically talking of distributive justice, and how it relates to Rousseau’s views bringing out several arguments in their views.
Overview of Justice
Rawls brings out several principles about justice, trying to give his own arguments as to why these principles should be considered by members in every society from an original position point of view. Rawls also clearly brings out the meaning of justice in his early 1980’s lectures. Rawls points out that justice attempts to capture all the essential aspects and justice is basically centered on two things: the morality of a person and justice principles which do characterize actions of citizens in a society. For instance, Rawls indeed asks, “What does the general will will?”, and he goes ahead to answer by saying “the public good together with justice”. Rousseau however does not write by saying that a general will indeed wills justice; and therefore the question begs what Rawls means by saying this (Simpson 243). Clearly he had something to be specific in his mind. A closer look indicates that there is a connection between his mind and the ideas of the society. Rousseau again doesn’t use this concept but Rawls’s has it when thinking about justice.
Rawls perceived a society to be a cooperative venture but this cooperative venture happened to be marked with conflicting interests. He also clarified that the cooperation often increases the living standards of people to a certain level that every individual is capable to attainable using their own effort. A conflict arises in between the interests because people will become dissatisfied with the way things are distributed in the society (Solomon et al. 543). Given that every individual has their own plan for their life, they will also have different ends and purposes, therefore having different shares in the natural or even the social resources that are available (John 101). If such conditions prevail, justice becomes relevant since there are conflicting claims in division of the resources (Solomon et al. 543). On the other hand, Rousseau, in his text of Social Contract, states that if inequalities are witnessed in property ownership bringing out political differences, it becomes difficult to see them having an equal opportunity.
Conclusion
If people have to identify themselves to belong in to a certain group with a common aim, it becomes a will that is general. And thus nature’s law is indeed a general will within the universe. Therefore the general will does will the common greater good, and justice. Nobody then should proclaim to be entitled to any rights except for those that are defined with justice and a greater good. If anyone happens to give them self to a society, they haven’t given themselves to anybody. Everyone one is entitled to the same rights and everyone should give oneself over so that they can be regulated with this greater good. People within a society may agree to the fact that rules in place are fair and prefer an exception in the same. They have to be compelled for them to comply with these fair rules, since justice defines the rights and also defines an equal freedom.
Epistemology or Ethics
Introduction
Epistemology is simply studying Knowledge. It therefore tries to answer some of the fundamental questions like; in what way do we know what we happen to know etc. Getting to understand this is very important especially given the fact that most people often have a wide sense of disagreement when it comes to ethical matters. Ethics, on the other hand, concerns with how people ought to relate and live with one another, focusing on the pleasure, any of the virtues, and all the happiness that there is (Kenny 78). Epistemology again not only does look at what this knowledge is but also looks at how one can be able to come up with that knowledge. It therefore includes things like logic, perception, science, language, belief, and even knowledge. Science, in Latin known as ‘scientia’, translates into Greek as ‘episteme’, and then English as ‘epistemology’. This notion direction simply points us towards something in the sense that words will always refer us to something or perceptions. And therefore, knowledge will always require these words to be known. In this perspective, ethics cannot be studied without considering epistemology. This essay makes an account on the need of considering epistemology and ethical foundations for any qualitative research.
The Path of Epistemological Reflection
Plato stated that in order to have virtue and even happiness, one requires having knowledge, for instance the knowledge for good or evils deeds. The ethics and epistemology of Plato are quite inseparable (Irene 79). In other words, epistemology happens to raise a lot of questions like for example: how do we know reality, how does the knower and whatever they know relate, what characteristics, principles and even assumptions guide this process for knowing, or if there is any possibility for that process to be shared or even get repeated to assess its quality and reliability (Solomon et al. 453). On the other hand, Kant suggests that there it is not possible to get at anything since those things that we already know always had a ‘shape’ before we came to know them. Any way we get to look at this world makes it just the way it is, and similar to the way we perceive it. He claims that knowledge is therefore a human artifact.
We therefore can try and find certainty within ethics as we seem to find certainty in all the knowledge and together with the understanding. This can only be achieved by the use of good questions. When we interact with the world around us, it helps us get the knowledge and be able to understanding everything within the physical environment and also the world itself. This is often through observed realities using our senses as we construct in our minds these models of the things we see (Solomon et al. 474). A sign showing us to stop can be used as an example. This is normally a red sign that has white letters “STOP” and is usually octagonal in shape. Why is this sign red, why is it also octagonal, why do they paint the letters in white, and why not paint “Arrest” and why would one ask such questions in the first place. The stop sign is not just anything but it is a conventional agreed upon thing, and since it is conventional, it becomes a very important thing in the society. It provides information, with defined rules and truths of a conventional system which are true. Rights or wrongs cannot be the same thing. Ethics does exist to help in such conditions and therefore this ethical analysis is only done if someone registers the knowledge to be able to do it (Kidder 89).
Conclusion
If someone happens to know what their own state of emotions, then it is clear that they can be able to understand the response of another person, knowing that maybe it would be a similar one to theirs. This is especially so when the given scenario may be of harm or care or even fairness. When they understand other people’s physical together with their emotional status, they show empathy, hence a foundation for knowledge and turns out to be ethics. If there happens to be different ways to acquire knowledge, or even different methods to know of a given scenario, then the philosophy of epistemology and that of ethics may appear as holistic. And since the philosophers’ dialogue is indeed a conversation that summons the reader’s mind, then each one of them is left to struggle in discovering for themselves the meaning of knowledge.
What does it Mean to be Human?
Introduction
From my essay (Justin 1), human nature happens to be the most complex thing to be able to understand in this universe. It also is the hardest thing to define as it is portrayed in the different fields of science as one tries attempting to study the human nervous system that contains neurons in billions and their connections that are in thousands. This essays tries to answer the question that regards to what it means to be human, to help in understanding if at all humanity is purely of material or only physical beings. This is question that helps us make a consideration as to whether we should regard ourselves as being monistic. However, a question about dualism arises whenever one is considering the issue that they are material or physical, only in body and they are nonmaterial within their hearts, their souls, and even minds. At this point hence forth, this question regarding to what is meant by being human seems more complex. For Socrates, a human being should be marked by their capacity to use instinct and also have a desire to be able to make conscious choices that are also ethical. However, Thomas Hobbes came up with a theory for legal positivism and uses the principle that humans are in a natural state for which without “commonwealth” they happen to be in constant war with each other, constantly fearing for their lives and even their possessions, for there is no property or even a right to it if there is no sovereign status in its definition.
To be Human
In this universe, there happens to be many ways on how to relate to this world that we dwell in and also the human beings around us. These ways appear to be in two categories. The first one and the most common today often focus on how to shape this world to be able to suit us. Another second one allows this world to be able to shape us for us to suit it. Most of the times, it has generally been true that shaping of the world in order to suit our own egos has been the only possibility, and for many cultures this assumption has mainly brought to shaped what exactly it means in being human today. The assumption is based on the cultural origins which truly lie in this idea that takes humans to be very unique species and also having a relationship to a supreme being, what Socrates called “a Father to the universe.” Plato therefore says that, it becomes very true to say that instinct together with a desire have all the power required to shape the human behavior.
However, these human beings are also capable of reflecting on these particular instincts and their desires and can even alter their possible actions based on reflection alone. The wars we witness, the factions, and the infighting happen to have no other origin but the very same body, together with its lusts. These concepts can be utilized to help in understanding and be able to account for that particular nature of that is exhibited in human beings. Dualism is another of the many concepts that are most intriguing in giving an effective answer, and helps understand the very issue of which pertains to the human nature. In radical dualism there is a very interesting concept that happens to separates the human soul from their body. In this radical dualism, a human and person are therefore easily identified using the former. A substance dualism however is another interesting concept which tries to explain by what it really means by to be human. It uses arguments such as the body being essentially simple or the body is very complex in nature (Rowan 10).
My paper talks of identity as a very common issue within the merits of getting to know more about humanity (Justin 1). This often occurs since it becomes difficult for us to understand if there is any difference or any similarities between our soul and our mind and if the soul or even our hearts are all but the same thing. Whenever one thinks of them, they always feel like the two are interchangeable. But for Plato (as it is for many others) human beings are marked by their capacity to use their instinct and the desire they poses to be able to make conscious decisions, which indeed are also very ethical choices. We as humans must therefore set our souls free from this and also be able to hold things just as they happen to be. And having gotten rid of this foolishness inside our bodies, we will be pure, having complete knowledge for the incorruptible truth (Flew 97).
There also happens to be three conceptual items of contention about what it means by being human. A question arise whenever someone tries to be able to understand how this very interconnection from body, the soul, and even the mind interacts with all the materialistic body. Additionally, we have the understanding of any awareness or any consciousness that relates to the different concepts we have, such as a biblical concept explaining to us that human beings were only made in God’s image (Teresa 80). This portrays a human being to be a person that tends to be occurring in many different circumstances. This is often so since we tend to use a person in a way to be able to describe several characteristics of a human being. And this brings us to the concept of positivity where Nietzsche categorically spoke of the human being as a person in constant war with another. Thirdly, a theoretical concept about human being happens to be very significant to be able to understanding what this humanity simply is. This however is evidenced when if at all brain damage, or a brain death or a brain diseases affects a person, it leads us to a question as we ask ourselves whether this are issues that can really affect humanity at large (Solomon et al. 453).
For us to be able to understand the question of what it really means to being human, and therefore come up with a substantive answer, we use several concepts. These concepts can be utilized to help in understanding and be able to account for that particular nature of that is exhibited in human beings. Dualism happens to be the concept that is most intriguing in giving an effective answer, and helps understand the very issue of which pertains to the human nature. In radical dualism there is a very interesting concept that happens to separates the human soul from their body. In this radical dualism, a human and person are therefore easily identified using the former. A substance dualism however is another interesting concept which tries to explain by what it really means by to be human. It uses arguments such as the body being essentially simple or the body is very complex in nature (Rowan 10). To add on that, it also makes consideration of if all that is in the human body is similar to what is in another human body. This however does imply that a strong relationship exists between the actions and the meaning of being human.
According to Nietzsche, humans are therefore determined by vital forces at play and the attractions to one another and not only are they by reason. He gives a priority towards an act for will, where an individual, makes a choice and takes control of them self, ceases being a child in nature, becomes a careful personality, a careful spiritual being that determines them self (McInerney 54). A human therefore cannot therefore be reduced up to being determined on the basis of biological, or psychological, or social and even spiritual). We need to be able to examine the humans’ existence first at a level of organisms, discovering the way they operate about based on laws, and how they self-regulation themselves as a processes in which every organism does.
My essay helps us be able to understand the question of what it really means to being human, and therefore come up with a substantive answer, we use several concepts (Justin 2). These concepts can be utilized to help in understanding and be able to account for that particular nature of that is exhibited in human beings. Dualism happens to be the concept that is most intriguing in giving an effective answer, and helps understand the very issue of which pertains to the human nature. In radical dualism, there is a very interesting concept that happens to separates the human soul from their body. In this radical dualism, a human and person are easily identified using the former. A substance dualism however is another interesting concept that tries to explain by what it really means by to be human.
Conclusion
In the ancient philosophy, a human being was considered to be a “small world” within the universe, being a reflection or a symbol for this universe. Therefore humans are understood to be spiritualized organisms in nature. And human beings, for that matter, possess strong basic elements in them, more than any other being in the universe. The essence for humans therefore is comprised both within a spiritual sphere, or the sphere within the mind, or even their bodily organization. They become aware of them self as part of a social whole universe. Human beings will always be able to act in a form determined from that preceding history. This form may be in essence a human activity that is encompassed in the material culture, labor, or their language, the concepts they posses, and the systems for any social norms in the society. Hence humans are therefore bio-social beings which represent the highest of all levels in the development within all the living organisms here on earth, in respect to labor, the social norms, communication and even with regard to consciousness.
Works Cited
Flew, Anthony. A Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed. New York: St. Martin’s, 1984.
Irene, V. de Gialdino. Ontological and Epistemological Foundations of Qualitative Research, 10.2, Art. 30 – May 2009.
John, Rawls. A Theory of Justice, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.
Kenny, Anthony, ed. The Oxford History of Western Philosophy. Oxford UP, 1994.
Illustrated.
Kidder, Rushworth M. How Good People Make Tough Choices. Simon & Schuster,
1996.
McInerney, Peter K. Introduction to Philosophy. Harper Collins College Outline.
HarperCollins, 1992.
Rowan, Williams. What does it mean to be a person? Human relationships and human limits,
8 Oct 2012, pp. 9-12.
Simpson, Matthew. Rousseau’s Theory of Freedom, Continuum, 2006, 124pp.
Solomon, Robert C, Kathleen M. Higgins, and Clancy W. Martin. Introducing Philosophy: A
Text with Integrated Readings. Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
Iglesias, Teresa. The Dignity of the Individual: Issues of Bioethics and Law. Pleroma Press, 2001, pp. 69-72.