“What is a fair society?” is quite an extensive question that interprets our opinions through an ideological filter. For the reason that ever since Aristotle a famous Greek philosopher, there has been a sense of accordance that every society especially the one we currently live in should always aim for fairness and equality. There is less of an agreement about how these terms should be accumulated or what they mean, which in all fairness is understandable because people have different personalities, different upbringings and different livelihoods. However, if equality and fairness get properly defined it could mathematically help us measure their extent accurately and allow us to establish whether society really upholds them.
In my opinion equality and fairness if taken literally can be misleading goals for society. The obvious issue with equality is that people are unequal themselves and what is needed for more equal society is a way to establish if a certain aspect of society should infact be enforced as equal by law above all of its members. A suggestion on how to decide which assets to equalise was proposed by a American philosopher John Rawls. John Rawls believed that if a group of people were to design a new society from the start without knowing beforehand what their positions would be( without knowing if they were going to be beautiful, rich, clever, popular or well-connected, etc), they would decide that at least some assets and attributes of society such as opportunities, laws, and freedom should be the same for every single person. I believe they would do this because they would want to increase their chances of being satisfied and happy despite their unspecified circumstances.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In the circumstances of individuals not knowing their own or each others positions in society John Rawls considers them to be under a veil of ignorance. This imaginary situation on where people agree on how society's assets should be distributed is called the original position. Even Though this considerable situation can never actually happen in a society, John argued that his idea could shed light on what actual laws should be, because it could predict what people want to be equal in society. In fact if assuming that every single person in society is rational there could be an option that would maximise everyone's chances of fulfilment and happiness.
When it comes to a fair society John Rawls original position helps investigate how assets might be best shared within people for a fair society. When it comes to distributing assets one must know that happiness and wealth are not among things anyone would agree to share, which is why egalitarianism a doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities, is a way to allocate society's assets among its members, which is collectively known as principles of distributive justice. This instances allows us to to make society fair by defining equality and fairness because a fair society refers to any place where a principle of distributive justice has been agreed and later enforced. Although philosophers such as John Rawls tend to argue over allocating assets like wealth since it is unfair by benefiting people who dont deserve it. However I believe and they as well do that assets such as voting rights, freedom, legal rights, happiness and the opportunity to earn wealth is what helps to make a fair society.
In conclusion it is clear that what a fair society should look like depends on who we are as people, however I do believe that we need an undisputed fair society because there are quite a lot of social issues such as the rich and poor. There should be numerous ways to solves these issues and allocating a fair society is a better way to make things better. I hope in the future a fair society that everyone can agree on can happen, which can make the society better.
Freedom for a person can on one hand be easy to define while on the other hand be hard to explain especially in the society we currently live in. People consider freedom to have different meanings,for example some might believe freedom is being able to do whatever they want, while others might want freedom from laws and rules that have been put in place my states and cultures. However according to John Locke an english philosopher and physician the state of nature is being free from an higher power in other words people are not under the will of others but only the law of nature for their rule. Locke believes the nature of freedom and freedom of will have played an enormous role in moral psychology and the philosophy of action. In discussing about freedom for citizens in society locke offers different accounts of forerance and action, freedom and of will and willing. These positions are what lead John Locke to dismiss the question of freedom for citizens but also raised new questions, for example whether we are free in respect of willing and whether we are free to will what we will.
John Locke also believes that In a political society freedom is being not under law making power but only if its established by consent in the commonwealth. According to him people are free from the dominion of legal restraint or any will apart from that enacted by their own law making power according to the trust put in. in fact freedom is constrained by laws in both political societies and the state of nature. Freedom of nature should not be under restraints but the law of nature and the freedom of people that is under the government should not also be under any restraints apart from rules that is needed to live by in society and made by law making power.
John Locke also believed that to fully understand political power correctly and derive it from its original we have to consider what people are natural in, which is a state with perfect freedom in order to order their actions and dispose of their possessions with bounds of the law of nature. Although Locke believes this it doesn't mean that he is against governments ruling society but he believe that if they are going to have power it should be decided by majority of the people. In Locke's mind freedom freedom should always be constrained by laws that is equal to everyone in society even though it sometimes prohibits acts. These acts can most of the time destroy communities or interfere with people's freedom.
A dream society is very easy to imagine because you just think the things you would want in a society. However a dreams society can also be the things your would want in society such as violence, fear, power and etc. These different aspects are what play a huge role in society especially in famous countries such as the United States, North Korea, Russia and ect. My dream society would have no fear, no violence, no death, no disease, no destruction but just peace and harmony, compassion and love. A society where everyone is treated equally, share mutual respect, are kind towards one another and where there is true justice and righteousness. Even Though my hopes of a dream society seems like a fantasy somedays I believe it helps to think about such dreams to help us through the harsh times in life and just escape daily burdens for a while. While these are my dreams about how a society could became other people have other goals and ideals.
Plato a Greek philosopher wrote a book called “ The Republic” where he explains his dreams and goals of an ideal society. Plato believe that women and men should have the same positions and education in society. He described an ideal society similar to mine such as where everyone lives without fear and violence nor material possession. During his time which was during 400 BC their political life was too rowdy and that no one would be able to live a harmonious life with that type of democracy. In his ideal society plato has three classes the guardians, the Auxiliaries and the masses. The guardians had political power because they were known as wise and for the reason that plato believed that a good society can only exist if philosophy and political power conjoin. The Auxiliaries would be the military and protectors of society, they also have to be courageous and gifted. The masses are those who are not in the upper class in other words everyone else.
Another philosopher Karl Marx also has a theory of an ideal society that can be compared to both mine and Plato's dream community. Karl Marx ideal society has two main social classes the bourgeoisie (the capitalists) and the proletariat (the workers). Karl sees proletariats as selling their labour in order to get paid and the bourgeoisie own the means of production. Marx also believes that an ideal society is connected to class conflict because he traced the history of humankind in the ways of how the economy worked and the roles of classes within the economy. Marxist ideal theory helps provide a solution to both issues of freedom and class conflict within his theory of communism and critiques of capitalism. This is what Karl Marx considered to be an ideal society.
Stuck on your essay?
