Egalitarianism Argument Essay
What principle would you consider more just, egalitarianism or utilitarianism? John Rawls is the father of the egalitarianism ideal; this means that everyone should have an equal share of everything. Jeremy Bentham, the creator of utilitarianism ideal stated that increasing the happiness of the majority is by far more important than the minority. Out of these two principles, egalitarianism is a better ethical theory than utilitarianism because it provides more justice and fairness regarding contracts and society.
All contracts are based on autonomy and reciprocity, however these standards are often not met. Autonomy contracts are a voluntary act. The freedom to make an agreement without being pressured. Reciprocity is when both parties gain from a contract. The problem of a moral contract using these two ideals is that they do not provide fairness and consent.
An example for when consent is not adequate using autonomy, is when somebody charges you an outrageous cost for something that costs much less. An example given in the text is about the plumber who charged an old woman 500,000 dollars just to fix her leaky toilet. Obviously, the woman signed the contract because she did not know any better. Even though the two parties agreed to the contract, it was not a voluntary contract. Also, people who believe in reciprocity consider this example unfair because the old woman did not receive equal benefits of the contract. This case demonstrates two points about the moral limits of contracts. “ First, the fact of an agreement does not guarantee the fairness of the agreement. Second, consent is not enough to create a binding moral claim.”Rawls strongly believes in reciprocity and autonomy, however he thinks that in order to make these contracts fair we need to imply equal knowledge and power.
Contracts that ensure equal power and knowledge are considered just. To implement an ethical social contract people would have to decide what principles would be best. It would definitely be difficult to agree because people would choose different principles based on their religious beliefs, interests, and social position. The principle should be chosen behind the veil of ignorance because it would prevent us from knowing anything about ourselves. We wouldn’t know our advantages or disadvantages, social class, gender, religious convictions and so on. This is Rawl’s idea of a social contract a hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality. This idea of a social contract guides us to the difference principle.
The difference principle is the best concept to govern social and economic inequalities. This principle states that economic inequality is only allowed, if it only helps the least advantaged. An example that Rawl provides in the text is that higher pay for doctors would benefit the poor from impoverished areas by providing more and better medical care. The difference principle can help the lest advantaged in many ways. One way would be providing the same education for people from different social classes. If everyone would get the same education then we would all have the same advantages or opportunities of becoming very successful. Therefore, the start of an equal society can begin by establishing the difference principle concept.
According to the utilitarians a just contract is when two individuals agree to a deal and both gain happiness out of the agreement. For this reason utilitarians think that a contract is fair as long as both individuals agree to it and their utility increase. This may sound very convincing but the truth is that not all deals are fair and just. A fair contract is when both parties have the same knowledge so that no one can be pressured or obligated to an agreement because they may have no other option. Also, having a utilitarian society would increase the people’s happiness. However, in a Rawlsian social contract, people would not choose utilitarian because we do not know if we are going to end up as a member of an oppressed minority.
To conclude, Jeremy’s ideal of utilitarianism is good but falls short on justice and fairness. As a result egalitarianism is a better ethical theory than utilitarianism because of the reasons given above. Overall, egalitarianism does not only provide fair and just contracts, but also equality something we are all looking forward to.
What principle would you consider more just, egalitarianism or utilitarianism? John Rawls is the father of the egalitarianism ideal; this means that everyone should have an equal share of everything. Jeremy Bentham, the creator of utilitarianism ideal stated that increasing the happiness of the majority is by far more important than the minority. Out of these two principles, egalitarianism is a better ethical theory than utilitarianism because it provides more justice and fairness regarding contracts and society.
All contracts are based on autonomy and reciprocity, however these standards are often not met. Autonomy contracts are a voluntary act. The freedom to make an agreement without being pressured. Reciprocity is when both parties gain from a contract. The problem of a moral contract using these two ideals is that they do not provide fairness and consent.
An example for when consent is not adequate using autonomy, is when somebody charges you an outrageous cost for something that costs much less. An example given in the text is about the plumber who charged an old woman 500,000 dollars just to fix her leaky toilet. Obviously, the woman signed the contract because she did not know any better. Even though the two parties agreed to the contract, it was not a voluntary contract. Also, people who believe in reciprocity consider this example unfair because the old woman did not receive equal benefits of the contract. This case demonstrates two points about the moral limits of contracts. “ First, the fact of an agreement does not guarantee the fairness of the agreement. Second, consent is not enough to create a binding moral claim.”Rawls strongly believes in reciprocity and autonomy, however he thinks that in order to make these contracts fair we need to imply equal knowledge and power.
Contracts that ensure equal power and knowledge are considered just. To implement an ethical social contract people would have to decide what principles would be best. It would definitely be difficult to agree because people would choose different principles based on their religious beliefs, interests, and social position. The principle should be chosen behind the veil of ignorance because it would prevent us from knowing anything about ourselves. We wouldn’t know our advantages or disadvantages, social class, gender, religious convictions and so on. This is Rawl’s idea of a social contract a hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality. This idea of a social contract guides us to the difference principle.
The difference principle is the best concept to govern social and economic inequalities. This principle states that economic inequality is only allowed, if it only helps the least advantaged. An example that Rawl provides in the text is that higher pay for doctors would benefit the poor from impoverished areas by providing more and better medical care. The difference principle can help the lest advantaged in many ways. One way would be providing the same education for people from different social classes. If everyone would get the same education then we would all have the same advantages or opportunities of becoming very successful. Therefore, the start of an equal society can begin by establishing the difference principle concept.
According to the utilitarians a just contract is when two individuals agree to a deal and both gain happiness out of the agreement. For this reason utilitarians think that a contract is fair as long as both individuals agree to it and their utility increase. This may sound very convincing but the truth is that not all deals are fair and just. A fair contract is when both parties have the same knowledge so that no one can be pressured or obligated to an agreement because they may have no other option. Also, having a utilitarian society would increase the people’s happiness. However, in a Rawlsian social contract, people would not choose utilitarian because we do not know if we are going to end up as a member of an oppressed minority.
To conclude, Jeremy’s ideal of utilitarianism is good but falls short on justice and fairness. As a result egalitarianism is a better ethical theory than utilitarianism because of the reasons given above. Overall, egalitarianism does not only provide fair and just contracts, but also equality something we are all looking forward to.