通过指出理论的不切实性,约翰罗尔斯的社会契约理论挑战利用主义。主要是,在一个功利的社会中,如果对这一公民的不公正会使其余的社会有益,则可以完全忽略公民的权利。罗尔斯认为,社会契约理论,类似霍布斯,洛克和卢梭所提出的理论将更加合理解决任何政府公平问题。社会契约理论一般,包括罗尔斯的观点,使得在一个社会建立自我兴趣,理性和平等的社会的情况下,司法规则是由相互接受和商定的其中的所有人。这种情况谈判该社会的法律将常常同意和有利于所有人是罗尔斯术语“原始职位和理由”。罗尔斯指出,对于这个系统工作,所有公民都必须将自己视为“无知的面纱”。通过这意味着所有决定缔约方在建立正义准则(所有公民)必须认为自己等于每个人都不介意他们的经济状况或其他任何事情,他们可以记住,他们可以牢记对这些品质谈判更好的情况。例如,如果这个社会中的每个人对建立具体法律有相同的影响,富人可能会提出税收应该相同,而不是与资产相等。这是为了这个和类似的情况,rawls感觉每个人都必须对自己感到不知情。 Rawls believes that the foundational guideline agreed upon by the those in the original position will be composed of two parts. The first of these rules of justice being one that enforces equal rights and duties for all citizens and the later of the two one which regulates the powers and wealth of all citizens.

在Rawls拥有的功利主义的概念中,公正的观众和理想的立法者是必要的。公正的观众是一个合理和敏感社会欲望的人。公正的观众必须感受到这些欲望,好像他们是他自己的欲望,并通过这样做,使他们每个人都优先于其他欲望,并将他们组织成一个系统,理想的立法者试图通过操纵和调整所有公民来最大限度地满足所有公民的系统这个社会的政策。通过这种功利主义理论,Rawls认为,决策过程正在整合到一个良知,并且这种系统没有思想,因为存在信仰并不普遍地忽略权利和自由的个人。他继续说“功利主义并没有认真对待人与人之间”(歌手p.339)。

罗尔斯认为,两个司法原则将从原始立场的谈判中出现:“1.家庭是对与他人类似的自由兼容的最广泛基本自由的人,2.社会和经济不平等是be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to the positions and offices open to all.” The first of these two principles suggests that everyone have an equal say in the election of a government official and equal power over the policies put into effect by that official. However, the second seems to suggest that if it benefits society, then inequalities of political power are acceptable. Although somewhat contradictory, this seems reasonable since getting the opinions of everyone every time an issue arose would be, to say the least, inefficient. According to Rawls, justice as fairness is far more acceptable than utilitarianism. An example taken from The Encyclopedia of Political Philosophy explains two situations, one acceptable by Rawls and the other acceptable under utilitarianism. The first states that slavery, (if beneficial to the slave as well as everyone else), is indeed acceptable according to Rawls. The second states that under utilitarianism, a slave’s misery would not matter since overall satisfaction is increased. It is just this reasoning that Rawls proves his theories superior. Rawls feels that utilitarianism does not take into account the individual and pays too much mind to the general happiness. Rawls argues that in this case everyone would be better off with his social contract theory rather than utilitarianism since under his theory general happiness would still be increased, but at the expense of no one or few. Rawls believes that the happiness of many may indeed outweigh the happiness of the few, but to govern by this would be unfair and unjust.

读:
Bendy仪表棒实验室:胡克的法律答案

我觉得密尔不会同意罗尔斯对功利主义的解释。在密尔1863年出版的《功利主义》的第二章中,密尔说:“行为的正确程度与促进幸福的程度成正比;这是错误的,因为它们往往会产生与幸福相反的东西。”密尔解释说,效用原则只应该被用作产生次要道德原则的工具,比如,一个人不应该为了保持或增加一般的幸福而对他人撒谎。密尔接着说,当我们面临两个或两个以上的次要原则之间的道德困境时,我们应该只遵循效用原则。例如,根据密尔的说法,我应该保护我的邻居不受伤害,我不应该欺骗别人。因此,如果有人想要伤害我的邻居,而我有能力通过欺骗来保护他,或者本质上通过真理来谴责他,那么通过回归效用的原则,我会做最能保持或制造幸福的事。罗尔斯会说,在这种情况下,按照功利主义的标准,如果能在社会中产生最多的幸福,那么“被真理谴责”是可以接受的。如果密尔听到了这样的陈述,他会为自己的理论辩护,让它听起来不那么冷酷和野蛮,他会进一步定义幸福包括我们所渴望的一切,包括爱,权力,财富,在这里最重要的是美德。所以尽管罗尔斯认为功利主义用真理来谴责或用欺骗来保护都是可以接受和可互换的,但密尔认为,根据美德,我们会毫无疑问地选择用欺骗来保护。 It is for this reason that I do not believe that the fundamental error of utilitarianism as described by Rawls is as destructive to the entire theory as Rawls makes it out to be.

我相信Rawls提出的功利主义理论不会妥善确认磨机定义的方面。罗格斯似乎通过磨机的“切割和干燥”的定义来了解。当他说“幸福”或“责任”时,我不相信罗尔斯究竟究竟介绍了磨坊试图说。这些术语对于了解磨坊理论至关重要。为了真正理解的磨坊,必须不能考虑到幸福的许多方面,如前所述和义务义务。磨坊将责任描述为含有其他事物,自我斗争,同情,宗教信仰和童年回忆。不要向博物馆描述的这些术语的真实性质通知,期望一个人与罗尔斯的功利主义相同的结论是不合理的。

罗尔斯提出的司法第二原则的一部分“a”表示,要安排社会和经济不平等,以便合理地预计是每个人的优势。罗尔人指的是这一部分是“差分原则”。差异原则意味着两件事。首先,那些拥有更少的自然资产,如财富或教育,值得特别考虑和赔偿。其次,罗尔斯意味着富人应该自愿地放弃他们的一部分财富,因为他们通过享受相互合作社会的好处而获得的比他们放弃的更多。如果Rawls认为,也许富人的损失可能确实超过了归因于回报的好处,并且也超过了穷人的幸福的兴趣,那么我想知道他会觉得他的论点是多么稳健。Rahls基于他的差异原则,假设财富是一种自然资产。这将发出通知自然彩票的想法,这意味着作为财富和教育的分布是任意的。如果这是无条件的情况,那么Rawls的理论无疑会保持真实。财富是唯一继承,无法获得自己的想法,这肯定会引起质疑公平,并且很可能结束所有应该是平等的。 In the real world however, wealth can be achieved by hard work and ambition. In this real world scenario then, it is reasonable to believe that the poor could be poor not because of a natural lottery, but because of their refusal to put forth the effort to be otherwise. Thus it is also true that the rich could be rich because of their willingness of labor. It is for these reasons that Rawls difference principle actually has little to do with fairness. This argument against the Theories of Rawls is supported and further explored in Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick (1974). Nozicks’ objections to the theories of Rawls include that it can’t be said how much is to be gained or lost by the rich or the poor in a redistribution of wealth and since it is no more outrageous to put forth an agreement that benefits the rich than it is to put fourth an agreement that benefits the poor, then the difference principle of Rawls is arbitrary.

读:
社会文化与社会比较理论

初次探索罗尔斯的原初状态,你可以找到一个相似的情况下,美国的管理机构已经证明是成功的和强大的很长一段时间,但当你读到罗尔斯的理论,它变成了一个类似于马克思主义哲学。我的意思是,罗尔斯的差异原则似乎与多年前在中国发生的财富再分配相似。中国的马克思主义者认为,最好是把权力交给无产阶级,而把权力从上层阶级和学者手中夺走。这与罗尔斯定义的差异原则相似。当时,对中国大多数人来说,这似乎是个好主意,能让每个人都处于平等的地位。我们都知道,这个体系,至少可以说,非常不稳定,最终失败了。另一方面,在美国,允许一个人拥有自己创造的财富和一些继承的财富的制度被证明是非常成功的。我们的政府体系很像罗尔斯的理论,在很大程度上,继承的财富被重新分配。这可以通过考察一个人通过努力工作创造财富的情况得到更好的解释。根据诺齐克的说法,一个靠自己获得财富的人有权拥有他们的财富,只要他们是诚实的。 This seems to be the case with our own laws and guidelines of society. When this same person passes on and passes their wealth on to the bequeathed, a portion of the estate goes to whomever the passing arranged for. The rest however (a very sizable portion in fact) gets redistributed through taxes and subsequently public services. This instance would appeal to Rawls. So it seems that the most practical outcome is a hybrid of two philosophies.

引用本文:威廉安德森(学校劳工编辑队),“John Rawls&理论”SchoolWorkHelper,2019年,//www.chadjarvis.com/john-rawls-theory/

帮助我们用旧的散文修复他的笑容,需要几秒钟!

- 我们正在寻找你aced的上一篇文章,实验室和作业!

- 我们将在我们的网站上审核并发布它们。
-AD收入用于支持发展中国家的儿童。
- 通过操作微笑和微笑火车,帮助支付腭裂修复手术。

客人
0.评论
内联反馈
查看所有评论