Abstract
This paper argues that Rawls' Difference Principle does not represent a substantial advance over the social contract philosophy of the Enlightenment. The paper goes on to demonstrate, however, how Rawls achieves a clarification of the issue, and how this clarification is useful in the modern context of liberal democracy. The paper explains the significant terms of Rawls, such as 'the veil of ignorance' and the 'original state', and presents the counterpart ideas of the Enlightenment philosophers. Finally, the paper shows how Rawls' terms allow us to justify liberal democracy over alternative political philosophies such as socialism.

From the Paper
"What Rawls describes as the original state is nothing different from what Locke calls 'the state of nature'. Locke had explained that in the state of nature man is characterized by freedom, and when philosophically considered, freedom must lead to the concepts of virtue, justice and equality. From such considerations it is possible to arrive at the basic rights of man, a set of rights on which all will agree, if philosophically engaged. Rawls repeats this argument exactly, describing the set of basic rights as "the conditions embodied in the description of the original position", and that these are conditions that we all accept, "[o]r if we do not, then perhaps we can be persuaded to do so by philosophical reflection" (Rawls 2005, p. 21)."

Tags:freedom, equality, free, will, recognition, liberal, democracy, Locke, Kant

Abstract
This paper is a comparison between the political theories of John Rawls and Robert Nozick and their opinions on distributive justice. Very emotive examples are utilised throughout this paper and the welfare state and the legitimacy of such a system is discussed. The Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' to legitimise the welfare state is described and the counter arguments of Nozick are reviewed. Finally, there is also a mention of morality and philanthropy.

From the Paper
"Rawls's theory is based upon the view that there should be an equal distribution of the wealth of society among all individuals, where "everyone should have an equal share" (Clayton et al, 2002, p165). He believes that all individuals have an equal claim to these benefits and that individuals should not be "advantaged or disadvantaged by natural future or social circumstances" (John Rawls, 1971, p18) in their lives which they have no direct control over, such as family, social class, and physical and mental attributes. His view is that men are born into different positions within society and so they have different expectations of life determined, in part by the political system, as well as by economic and social circumstances and in this way the institutions of society "favour certain starting places over others" (Ibid, 1971, p7). "

Tags:Veil, of, Ignorance, welfare, state, Rights, liberties, Locke

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

Abstract
The paper discusses how Rawls' Contractarian philosophy resides in the social contracts that are made between individuals and the governments they must serve for the greater good. The paper explains that for Rawls, the premise of torture would not be a viable way for the United States (for example) to use torture, even if the person may save thousands of lives in the ticking time bomb scenario.

Tags:america, torture, rawls

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 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
This paper discusses three kinds of social choice theory - Rawls' theory of social choice, focusing on his "Difference Principle", the Utilitarian theory which posits that the best decisions are those that effect the greatest good for the largest number, and Nozick's theory of libertarianism, in which the individual is allowed free rein and free choice, over the choices of the majority. The writer argues that Nozick's theory, by emphasizing human dignity and autonomy, is the greatest of the three social choice theories because it secures the individual's freedoms and the prerogatives of all individuals.

From the Paper
"The following paper will look at three manifestations of social choice theory - Rawls' theory of social choice (specifically its "Difference Principle"), the Utilitarian theory wherein social choices are made by following the general rule that the best decisions are those that achieve the greatest good (happiness) for the greatest number, and Nozick's theory of libertarianism, wherein individual choices "trump" collective choices and wherein the state is enjoined to allow individuals to do with themselves as they see fit. To detail Nozick's work a little more fully, he is ultimately taking the view that society, as a whole, makes the conscious determination to give its members the freedom to "own" their own beings free of state interference."

Tags:rawls, nozick, utilitarianism

Abstract
This paper summarizes the theme of Wilson Rawls' novel "Where the Red Fern Grows", the theme of teamwork.

From the Paper
"The theme of "Where the Red Fern Grows" is teamwork. The characters in the book all work together to help each other accomplish their goals. The fishermen toss in nickels and dimes buying Billy's crawfish and minnows to help him save up for his hounds and his father brings him food when he decides to stay all night and chop down the big tree. Big Dan and Little Ann help Billy tree the coon as well as..."

Tags:Where the Red Fern Grows, Wilson Rawls, book, novel, story, dog, lion, teamwork, love, sacrifice

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
This paper examines the ethics and ideals of justice that predict organizational success and employee well-being. The author examines the various theories of ethics and justice and how they relate to industrial psychology in the workplace.

From the Paper
"The following essay will critically evaluate the role that theories of ethics and justice can play in facilitating organizational effectiveness and employee well-being. In doing this, the essay will demonstrate that theories of ethics and justice have long and complicated historical and philosophical roots. Due to space constraints, only the philosophical ethical theories of utilitarianism, and Kant's Categorical Imperative, and people as ends in themselves will be examined in this essay. In terms of justice, social contract theory, in the form of John Rawls' veil of ignorance will be examined."

Tags:categorical, effectiveness, employee, ethics, ignorance, imperative, kant, organisational, rawl, utilitarianism, veil, satisfaction, morale