No society can, of course, be a scheme of cooperation which men enter voluntarily in a literal sense; each person finds himself placed at birth in some particular position in some particular society, and the nature of this position materially affects his life prospects. Yet a society satisfying the principles of justice as fairness comes as close as a society can to bring a voluntary scheme, for it meets the principles which free and equal persons would assent to under circumstances that are fair. [John Rawls, A theory of Justice]
John Rawls, in defining what he calls “justice as fairness” puts forth the following two key principles:
First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably to be expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.
The law can and should be seen as the connection of freedom and fairness. We all scream that we want freedom, but we should also realize that absolute freedom is not possible in any society. Still, some level of fairness is possible and in statutory form can be seen as the only means of providing for freedom in ways that benefit society as a whole. Laws are made in our society to presumably protect the rights of all citizens. But fairness, while facilitating freedom, also thwarts it in the form of law. A property owner may wish to have the freedom to build anything they desire on their property, but the law, in place to protect the welfare of the community, says this is not acceptable. What is the quid pro quo in such cases? The property owner is giving up a particular freedom in exchange for a communal contract that all must give up such a freedom for the welfare of all. Law then, is an agreed to set of proscriptions, a covenant, that benefit all and, while limiting individual freedom, facilitates or enforces fairness.
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/sansom_freedom.htm
John Rawls, in defining what he calls “justice as fairness” puts forth the following two key principles:
First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably to be expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.
The law can and should be seen as the connection of freedom and fairness. We all scream that we want freedom, but we should also realize that absolute freedom is not possible in any society. Still, some level of fairness is possible and in statutory form can be seen as the only means of providing for freedom in ways that benefit society as a whole. Laws are made in our society to presumably protect the rights of all citizens. But fairness, while facilitating freedom, also thwarts it in the form of law. A property owner may wish to have the freedom to build anything they desire on their property, but the law, in place to protect the welfare of the community, says this is not acceptable. What is the quid pro quo in such cases? The property owner is giving up a particular freedom in exchange for a communal contract that all must give up such a freedom for the welfare of all. Law then, is an agreed to set of proscriptions, a covenant, that benefit all and, while limiting individual freedom, facilitates or enforces fairness.
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/sansom_freedom.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment