Response to Rawls's, "A Theory of Justice:"

Rawls's attitude toward the least advantaged people in society is one of determination for equality among thoes who are better off than them. He wishes to create a type of justice in which the lesser fortunate are equal to the fortunate persons in society. His argument is that it is not fair for the rich to get richer while the poor get more poor. This arugment is best defined by this statment from Rawls, "It may be expedient but it is not just that some should have less in order that others may prosper." Rawls believes that justice must be fair to all individuals, in that the rights of the individual should never be sacrificed for the greater good of society. In order to achieve his beliefs, he proposes what he calls the "origional position" concept (Rawls 200), which means that society chooses an origional starting point in which the designers of the society make certain assumptions about the primary goods (which are things such as freedom, equality, opportunity, wealth, income, and power) that each person in the society must have. To obtain this origional position, the "veil of ignorance" (Rawls 200), which is simply means that the members of the society make their decisions about the "primary goods" without knowing where they, themselves would fall in the classes of society, was created. Only blinded by this "veil of ignorance," can the members of society fairly agree upon an even distributation of the primary goods among the citizens and their decisions would not be baised by personal circumstances.

Therefore it is obvious that Rawls supports the "little people" over the more fortunate people. Rawls's attitude toward the less advantaged people is one that reminds me of how the Democratic party runs its campiange. The Demopcrats also believe that justice cannot be fair if only a certain group has more of the wealth, opportunities, power, and income than another. Such an unfair situation gives way to a loss of equilibrium, and eventually the plunder of a society. If a party were to support the ideals of one group being more successful than another, it would be a lot like the Republican party in today's government.

I must say that I truely enjoyed reading this piece from Rawls's book, "A Theory of Justice." My political beliefs are a lot like Rawls's, in that I believe the lesser fortunate group of people in a society should be equal in obtaining and keeping the primary goods just as the more rich and successful people of a society. In my opinion, if a society continues to have an unfair advantage to only one particular group it will not last long, for both groups will be greedy, and unforgiving; only one will prosper and that is incomplete inconsistancy to the constitution of the United States of America. Although the constitution was written by wealthy, well-to-do men, I believe they were writing it for everyone to live by, and for future politions to make rules in accordance to. Although the society we live in today is baised and one-sided, I believe times are changing and we will soon begin to see more equality among the different persons in our society.

Works Cited

Rawls, John. "A Theory of Justice." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2006. pp 195-206.