In the ancient times, man lived by following the principles of nature because of the then absence of government. However, the natural laws subjected man to oppression and adversities with regards to the relationships between certain sections of the society. Therefore, they agreed to respect one another to enhance longstanding peace and harmony in the society. This was possible by being obedient to established authorities as regards the capitulation of part of their rights and individual freedoms to the aforesaid establishments. Therefore, several philosophical perspectives have been developed to explain how best the contractual agreement could work between individuals with the social contract being the core guiding principle justifying where the sovereign power rests (Friend, n.d). Hence, the members of the society were guaranteed peace and security to counteract the warlike natural status postulated to have existed before the advent of the social contract. Conversely, among the many philosophers who present their assertions regarding the theory in question, John Rawls’ Theory of Justice depicts the most plausible arguments about social contract based on contemporary moral and political philosophies.
Rawls argues that human beings were created with an underlying capability of reasoning from a common perspective to enhance their understanding of the moral capacity associated with judging principles originating from a neutral position. The impartiality manifesting itself in this context originates from the moral and political points of view among humans throughout their daily interactions in the society. From this concept, Rawls political philosophies have greatly revived political interests in the contemporary world due to the plausibility of his assertions. Rawls further ascertains his assertions with reference to both hypothetical and original positions though with primary concern on epistemological avoidance of the veil of illiteracy (Friend, n.d). The original position involves the universal state of nature whereby rational individuals can recognize the best nature of justice that nature expects from humans and the established social institutions to compliantly arrive at amicable decisions (Rawls, 1971). Therefore, individuals are expected to control their affairs without interfering with others' wellbeing regardless of age, social status, race, and gender among other related circumstances. Hence, Rawls provides the best argument regarding how people choose inherently fair principles from the original state of the society. This argument is true with regards to the absence of underlying knowledge to facilitate the development of the societal principles to favour one's interests and/or circumstances. Hence, Rawls absence of self-interested rationality in making laws governing the society promotes fairness since the preceding situations from which justice is arrived at are impartial. By relating this concept to the contemporary world, the view of social contract streamlines both the moral and political fundamentals of sources of power in all sovereign states on a global perspective.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Therefore, Rawls philosophical ideas are based on the fact that everyone is subjected to similar conditions and that they are equally rational as regards the law of nature that assumes that everyone is equal. And because the basis for adopting specific principles governing the society is open to everyone, all humans will be occupying similar positions in the society, specifically characterized by the disembodied, rational and universal human being. The basic concept involves the consideration of justice from the original position to enhance consent with the guiding principles from which laws are made (Rawls, 1971). Hence, in any just society, people would tend to reason in similar ways as they rely on the natural principles of the original position to arrive at fair conclusions without compromising an individual’s rights at the expense of others.
Notably, Rawls justifications of the view of social contract further confirm that the original position could ensure the effective functioning of the society even in the absence of the constitutional democracies (Najafpour & Harsij, 2013). The core reason behind this argument relies on the equal provision of both civil liberties and social and economic goods to avoid the suffering of certain sections of the society with social contracts as the primary cause of the miseries (Rawls, 1971). Hence, Rawls, through his assertions, provides the most fundamental rights to humans as well as equal liberties to every member of the society to avoid injustices related to either social class or other circumstances (Friend, n.d). Further, the justifications are based on equal social and economic inequalities in the society for them to be regarded as just conditions to everyone. This is in support of the second Rawls’ principle of social contract theory, the difference principle, to grant equal opportunities for greater economic advantages (Dutta, 2017). Notably, the prevailing economic situations in a just society should have equal impacts on everyone in the same society regardless of some individuals’ conditions that give them an advantage over the others.
Noteworthy, there is a critical relationship between the principle of the original position and the difference principle. This is because the latter grants equal access to social and economic goods by humans in the society while the former grants equal civil liberties (Dutta, 2017). The plausibility in this context relies on the fact that individuals cannot intentionally forego civil freedoms at the expense of perceived economic benefits. Hence, there is a fundamental rational preference guiding the choice of certain types of commodities like the ones embodied in civil rights at the expense of economic advantage; with regards to the idea that individuals own similar feelings and experiences and neither can be regarded inherently better than the other (Friend, n.d). Hence, as rational human beings, we can conclude that Rawls regarded justice as the core foundation of any social structure existing in our contemporary world. With respect to political philosophies, both political and legislative decisions should comply with the requirements of justice to avoid discrimination of humans based on the provisions of the law. Hence, Najafpour & Harsij (2013) contends that Rawls fully relies on the reconciliation of equality and liberty to achieve the desired just society in our everyday encounters (Dutta, 2017).
Therefore, Rawls presents an intellectual description of the social contract theory upon enlightening individuals about the veil of ignorance and the concept of original position. He posits what rational societal members must be willing to accept with reference to the requirements of justice for one to fit well in an ordered society (Friend, n.d). Therefore, in the process of delving into social contracts, persons must understand that the principles of justice should prevail before the implementation of the proposed laws in the governance system. This is because it is through the principles of justice that dictate how society is constructed before engaging in such social contracts and also set the limits individuals’ freedom. Hence, Rawls’ ideas are in agreement with the Kantian understanding of a just society in relation to the permissible types of both political and social institutions in a just society that result in political liberalism (Otteson, 2009). Hence, this implies that in a just society, autonomy and dignity of the individual should be prioritized in the process of making legislation (Otteson, 2009). This is because both autonomy and freedom are fundamental elements that make a person rather than just mere judgments based on justifications by the laws of men.
References
Dutta, S. (2017). Rawls’ Theory of Justice: An Analysis. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) . Volume 22, Issue 4. PP 40-43. Retrieved 28/7/2018 from http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.%2022%20Issue4/Version-1/G2204014043.pdf
Friend, C. (n.d). Social Contract Theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource . Fieser, J. & Dowden, B. (Ed.). New York. Retrieved 28/7/2018 from https://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
Najafpour, S. & Harsij, H. (2013). The Impact of Rawls and MacIntyre Theory of Justice on National Cohesion in Multicultural Societies. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences . Vol. 3, No. 7. Retrieved 28/7/2018 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.678.7270&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Otteson, J. R. (2009). Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism. The Independent Review , vol. 13, issue no. 3, pp. 389–409. Retrieved 28/7/2018 from http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_03_4_otteson.pdf
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. (Revised ed.). Harvard University Press. Massachusetts. [Updated: 2018]. Retrieved 28/7/2018 from http://www.univpgri-palembang.ac.id/perpus-fkip/Perpustakaan/American%20Phylosophy/John%20Rawls%20-%20A%20Theory%20of%20Justice~%20Revised%20Edition.pdf
