Distinguishing between Rawlsian and Libertarian Philosophy of Thoughts

Rawlsian and Libertarian theories are concepts that have continued to draw attention to many thinkers as they compare and contrast situations of what is justice. The field of justice has remained an area of controversy; many agree or disagree on what is justice and what is right to determine what is justice. Through many legal cases, outside and inside courts, in many situations, people have felt either the case was fairly determined or unfairly determine. Many have either argued the cases were determined fairly or unfairly due to their way of reckoning. Through our different influences, we sometimes argue about what is justice by considering what is good for us and ignore the other affected party. Through this essay, an evaluation of what is justice is covered, but in contrasting Rawlsian and Libertarian argument of what is justice based on two case studies.

Case study one

The first case study is based on a situation where the Republican continue to disagree with Obama’s determination to raise tax for those earning more than $250,000. In the Rawlsian thoughts of justice, he believed that justice is what is attained by an individual in the veil of ignorance, by ignoring all our individual characteristics in the fate of fairness for others. In this case, based on the case study, the republican’s argument on why the tax should not be increased for high income is not justified in accordance with the Rawlsian thought of justice. The reason is that many of republicans falls under the category of high-income earners and there might be a likelihood, they are against the idea because they could be affected if such cuts are implemented. The fact is that the Republican from Rawlsian standpoint fails to ignore their positions in politics for the interest of others in the society who are also taxed even with little earnings. Their argument is also based on hypothetical agreement among members of the Republican to fight Obama’s efforts to instigate more cuts for high income behind a veil of ignorance based on the fact that they earn more than others in the society.

On the other hand, from Libertarian perspective, especially modern libertarian, the Republicans might be justified to some extent in fighting against Obama’s demands based on libertarian’s thoughts of neutrality. From the laws of justice, every individual ought to be treated equally and fairly, based on such argument; the Republican should be listened to fairly though contradicting with the same libertarian thought of moral obligation.

Case study two

The second case study is based on a situation where two judges earn differently by a huge significant amount in their different environment of duty. One who is the chief justice in the Supreme Court but earning $217,400 annually and the other who is a judge but running a reality show on television earns $24 million annually.

In this case, arguing its fair for one of the judges to earn more than the other annually, though working in a different environment, would contradict libertarian thought of neutrality. Having the same title of a judge, it would sound fair if the two were treated equally especially in rewards through salaries. But at the same time each of the judges has the right to earning differently, and that would sound fair. Each judge has the right to earn equally as other person working in similar environments; that’s justice.

From John Rawls perspective, it’s in order to argue that it’s fair to have the judges earn differently even though they share the same title of judges. From his principles of justice, any agreement behind the veil of ignorance, according to him that is justice. As long as the two have similar titles, and they both work in a different environment, then it justified ignoring that they share similar titles of a judge and claim they are fairly paid.

CONCLUSION

Though there are numerous controversies on who is right and why when applying to the corridors of justice. It’s important to have all factors put into consideration by those working in the fields of justice especially while dealing with different issues that may affect the other party or the society.

Works Cited