Abstract
This paper begins by articulating the philosophies and beliefs of both John Rawls and Robert Nozick as well as their ideas concerning distribution and justice. The paper discusses how Nozick's views are more fiscally conservative while Rawls' tend to be more socialistic. The paper then compares the two authors, namely in their shared belief that the individual should be allowed to pursue his own interests, provided it does not impede anyone else's ability to pursue his own goals. This paper also discusses both authors' opposition to to utilitarianism.

From the Paper
"Nozick also discusses the topic of taxation and explains how it is unjust. It is the equivalent of forcing one to work for free. A portion of the worker's earnings is taken back by society, making the individual work for another person's purposes. Those who are poor and utilize the welfare programs made available are reaping the benefits of these worker's actions (Nozick, 1974). It is as if they have a claim to the labor of others; it is unjust for a person to be forced to work for the benefit of another. Thus, the distribution in this manner is unjust. Those workers are not choosing to give charity or work for other's well being but are forced to do so without freely entering into the relationship."

Tags:robert nozick, john rawls, justice, entitlement theory, redistribution, taxation

Abstract
Determining how well-suited distributive justice theories are as frameworks for formulating and/or defending the justice-related grievances and aspirations of homeless people can best be achieved by focusing on a particular theory. Narrowing the focus primarily to the work of a specific distributive justice theorist, such as John Rawls, provides a concise and clearly defined framework which can then be systematically applied to homelessness issues. This paper examines the applicability of Rawls' theory in the context of addressing the grievances and aspirations of homeless people.

Tags:rawls, homeless, people

Abstract
The paper outlines John Rawls' two general principles of justice and how they apply to the present education system in the United States. The paper discusses the benefits and drawbacks of school vouchers but reaches the conclusion that, according to Rawls, if we allow private and public schools to be economically segregated without government interference, then we are not giving the greatest benefit to the least privileged citizens, therefore violating their basic justice. The paper also asserts that if education was strengthened across the board, there is no doubt that crime rates would decrease, we would see more graduates from high school and college, and overall, more lower income students would become successful.

From the Paper
"Taking a look at the present education system in the United States, anyone can see that the scheme of equal basic liberties does not benefit the lower socioeconomic class in this country. This is where the idea of a "school voucher" comes into place. The idea of the "school voucher" is that based on parent/guardian incomes, each family receives a voucher per student in their household, so that the parent or guardian can decide whether to apply it to a public school, or use the money to lighten the load of tuition for a private school. In Cleveland, many schools have adopted this practice, and the pros and cons have come into light."

Tags:Rawls, school voucher, education, political theory, libertarian

Abstract
This paper explains that John Rawls' thinks of his justice principles as fairness which ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance. The author points out that Robert Nozick is saying, if you take a society where some are poor and some wealthy, and spread the wealth around equally - as Rawls suggests must be done to have "justice" and "fairness" in a society - you're basically taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The paper relates that justice isn't necessarily about "fairness", in Nietzsche's world; it's in part about "reactive feelings" to an injustice.

Table of Contents
Introduction
Rawls: About Justice
Robert Nozick's Philosophical Positions vis-a-vis John Rawls Suggesting Shortcomings in Rawls' Theories
Nietzsche's View of Justice Collides with Rawls

From the Paper
"In going to great lengths to explain justice, he adds that he is not saying the concepts of justice and fairness are identical. Rather, he is alluding to the "traditional theory of the social contract," which is that in real, pure, un-corrupted fairness, "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status." Also, no one knows his "fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like." The principles of justice, in his hypothetical description, are agreed to "in an initial situation that is fair." The parties in this concept of understanding justice are "rational and mutually disinterested" - and they are not "taking an interest in one another's interests," he writes. He further sets up his argument by suggesting that those persons in his initial situation would choose two "rather different principles." "

Tags:style, fairness, justice, advantaged, reaction

Abstract
The paper looks at how John Locke, in "The Second Treatise", defines the method of just property acquisition, and how Rawls in "Justice as Fairness" promotes two "principles of justice". The paper explains how Locke attaches great importance to the protection of property rights for individuals, while Rawls considers the meaning of such property rights for the least-advantaged people in society. The paper outlines the problems with Locke's views as well as the objections to Rawls' theory of distributive justice through regulation and taxes. The paper reaches the conclusion that Rawls' theory of just property acquisition benefits society to a greater extent than does Locke's theory.

From the Paper
"John Locke defines the method of just property acquisition in The Second Treatise. Labor is the basis of owning property for Locke: if a man "mixes his labor" with land or livestock, he owns it (Locke 274). For example, if he exerts the effort to till the land or maintain the livestock, the land and livestock are his property. He gained them from the use of his own person's labor, because "every man has a property in his own person" (274). Locke attempts to prove the soundness of this idea by arguing that if land is not cultivated, it has no value to society; therefore cultivated land, even if it is taken out of the category of "common ownership," actually does more good for society if owned privately (279). Locke does partially address the problem of accumulating wealth and increasing inequality. According to Locke, an individual only has the right to "as much as he could make use of" (279); if his property spoils, he has deprived other people by not using it when they could have instead. However, money and precious metals do not spoil, and so, he says, one has the right to accumulate money. Locke admits money as the primary exception to his "spoil" rule (286)."

Tags:taxes, regulation, government, inheritance, equality

Abstract
The paper states that the John Rawls' theory declares that no inborn benefits of political authority, substance riches or natural capability should irreversibly or overpoweringly establish life chances and that these morally subjective issues should not establish the value of political liberties to moral persons. The author points out that Rawls and numerous other moderate philosophers employed this theory as a weapon with which to impose warfare on the English nobility by which a minority was repressing monetarily and socially a majority. The author believes that, in the twentieth century, John Rawls's emphasis on impartiality has lured extra observations and stimulated extended concentration than any other exertion in ethical or opinionated philosophy.

Table of Contents
Introduction
The Origin of the Theory and the State of the Justice System at that Time
Justification
Constructivism
Utilitarianism
Intuitionism
Contrast with Kant's Theory
Impact of the Theory; Now and Then

From the Paper
"Setting the juncture for his conjecture of justice Rawls aims at the departure of utilitarianism and labels it a "distribution problem". As stated by Rawls, utilitarianism grows erroneous if it disappoints to disburse concentration to how that welfare is circulated; there is nothing incorrect, however, with the utilitarian model of publicizing the common interests. The contentment of others cannot make up for the immense anguishes by a few. This is a sharing difficulty as when the pain is circulated in one location and the pleasure is circulated everyplace else, delight disappoints to recompense for the pain i.e. "one man's fortune is another man's gain". Or else if one endures at the present for some afterward reward, then the victim is satisfied later, than likewise the beneficiary of the anguish is afterward the receiver of the pleasure, equalizes it. Equally, it is unjust to compel one to compensate for one's sins but just if one compensates for himself. Utilitarians can't eliminate a definite type of discriminatory agreement for the reason that the reimbursements and afflictions are not disseminated reasonably by being oblivious to how that pleasure is scattered and in its place considering the figure of bliss. It is vital to observe that it is the injustice that plights Rawls not the inequality of the agreement. Such an unjust conclusion cannot survive in any moral organization. Therefore, it is no chance that considering this Rawls opts to name his conjecture "Justice as Fairness"."

Tags:kant, authority, nobility, liberty, majority

Abstract
This paper discusses John Stuart Mill's utilitarian-based view, which bases morality on the promotion of the maximum pleasure and minimal pain for the greatest amount of people in a society. The writer then discusses John Rawls' theory of justice, based on the desire for fairness in a society, which opposes Mill's utilitarianism. By presenting a critique of Mill's utilitarianism and showing that moral decisions based on utilitarianism are sometimes unacceptable, as opposed to a common natural desire for justice above all else, the writer demonstrates that Rawls' theory of justice is the most appropriate theory of morality.

From the Paper
"On the discussion of moral philosophy and ethics, John Mill supports the position of utilitarianism. Mill's utilitarianism is based on the "greatest happiness principle", which states that moral decisions should be based on promoting the success of the society, maximizing the happiness and pleasure and minimizing the pain and suffering for the greatest amount of people. Mill claims that the desire for happiness and avoidance of pain is true to all people and that this trait should be the basis for a theory of moral philosophy. He elaborates by showing happiness itself can be measured more specifically according to quality rather than simply by quantity, allowing for different levels of happiness dependent on the cause and the individual."

Tags:emotion, ideal, fairness, prejudice, impartiality, rights, economic, maximin

Abstract
This paper provides a brief overview and discussion of the debate between John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas. The writer describes the context of the debate and the problem that sparked it, and explains key elements of Rawls' theory, Habermas's criticism of Rawls, and key elements of Habermas' theory. Some of their significant differences are explored, as, for example, where Rawls universalizes the principles of public reason (overlapping consensus), Habermas universalizes the principles of rational discourse (ethics of discourse). The writer contends that both theories are significant for theological ethics, since both strive to reach some sort of agreement leading to fairness and equality of people of distinct comprehensive doctrine.

From the Paper
"The main problem that is before us is one of a reassessment of the foundations of modernity. The two world wars which caused unparalleled numbers of deaths and, in particular that of WWII with its unprecedented atrocities and crimes against humanity, seem to provide evidence or proof for something that could be in put in place to prevent wars that could no longer solely be blamed on religion or class struggles. The fundamental question at stake was whether the great confidence in reason and science (technology) has been perhaps overemphasized and was not a reliable means to ensure a peaceful existence for humanity amongst our vast differences. Both Rawls and Habermas are looking at the same problem and both start at the same point, namely the incompatibility of different comprehensive doctrines."

Tags:God dynamics philosophy pluralism theology, democratic society

Abstract
The paper explains how Rawls' theory of justice originates in the hypothesis of an 'original position'. The paper further explains how for Rawls, a fair social organisation must be derived from a fair initial agreement. The paper shows how Rawls' system, by authorising the state to interfere with the individuals' properties for the sake of social justice, clearly places the ideal of equality before that of liberty.

Outline:
A Theory of Justice Originated in the Hypothesis of an 'Original Position'
A Fair Social Organisation Derived from a Fair Initial Agreement
Conclusion

From the Paper
"The traditional notion of 'state of nature' preceding the signature of the social contract, developed in particular by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, gives Rawls the ground to develop his theory of justice. However, he differentiates himself from the tradition by calling this initial state 'original position' and modifying its features. Whereas the hypothetical characteristic of the contract is not always obvious in the works of his predecessors, Rawls clearly states that the original position is an artificial model strictly conceived as a device for thinking: no original position ever really existed, but it serves as a matrix to simplify reality and put into evidence solutions that can then be adapted to the real world."

Tags:distribution, liberty, equality, fairness

Abstract
The paper explores the concepts of Kant's Utilitarianism in contrast to John Rawl's political conception of justice. The paper demonstrates that, while in theory Rawl's concept of justice as fairness seems viable, it would be impossible to put his theory into practise. The paper therefore concludes that while Rawls' theory of justice is generally applicable, it does not sufficiently address justice for the mentally disabled.

From the Paper
"While reading John Rawl's work it is easy to mistake him for his predecessor in the field of social justice and morality; Emmanuelle Kant. Claims such as all citizens are free, equal and independent, and must therefore be treat with equal regard mirror Kant's claim that humanity is intrinsic in value. Furthermore Rawls claims that all citizens have a capacity for justice (Rawls, 1999) which is similar to Kant's assertion that human beings are rational beings, with the capacity to reason (Kant, 1998 [1781) and therefore the capacity to develop an understanding of what is just, moral and fair."

Tags:Utilitarianism, Kant, identity, veil, of, ignorance