I think that a society based on Rawls would be more just than a society based on Young's theory, mainly because I don't like not everything Young presented. I will first review the arguments presented by Rawls, and then by Young, about what makes a society just. The second reason will be why I chose Rawls over Young, why I became skeptical of Young in the first place and why I think his ideas create structured oppression, why I think a universalist approach to this subject is better than a relativist approach, and why politicizing everything would lead to a society that would never manage to accomplish anything. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Rawls bases his theory on a hypothetical scenario. In this he says that if everyone were placed in their original position behind a veil of ignorance, they would agree with the principles of justice that he himself proposed. Rawls says that everyone behind the veil is rational, which means self-interested. They would like to make the most of it, if you will. It proposes two principles: “First: each person must have an equal right to the broadest fundamental freedom consistent with similar freedom for others. Second: social and economic inequalities must be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to the advantage of all, and (b) attached to positions and functions open to all.” (Rawls, 60 years old) His point of view is universal; no deviation or change is necessary. Young's basis is oppression, in the sense that oppression is the greatest injustice, and we must alleviate it. It identifies five forms of oppression: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism and violence. Exploitation is investing more in a task than you get for completing it. On marginalization: “The marginalized are people that the work system cannot or does not want to use. » (Young, 54) Young says powerlessness is the lack of voice, whether in work or in government; when you don't have a say, you are powerless. Cultural imperialism is the destruction of one's cultural traditions by the majority. Groups who experience oppression in the form of violence “…live with the knowledge that they must fear random and unprovoked attacks on their person or property, which have no motive other than to damage, humiliate or to destroy the person.” (Young, 61 years old) It also focuses on groups rather than the individual, on the fact that there cannot be a just society without the recognition of different social groups and the politicization of everything. I chose Rawls partly because I find Young's theory too sensitive. I think in a society Young created, I would make an offhand comment and someone would start yelling that I am oppressing them. The modern idea of ​​social justice, as far as I can tell, has resulted in people getting upset over trivial things, like their teacher not asking them what pronouns they want to be called by. The other, more philosophical reason is that I find that Rawls manages to answer the same problems in a much simpler way, and Occam's Razor says that the simplest solution is usually correct. I also find that I like the ethical approach more. The first problem I had with Young came when she used the Hebrews in Egypt as an example of oppression. She claims to base her theory on history, but doesn't botherto verify the historicity of this assertion. There is no historical evidence that the Hebrews were oppressed by the Egyptians, nor is there any evidence placing the group in Egypt at the time the Bible claims they were there. Additionally, the Egyptians treated their workers with decency. After reading this I became skeptical of everything she wrote. If she's too lazy to verify a claim, why should I consider anything she writes trustworthy? Young's system creates a circular pattern of oppression; the oppressed gain rights and then oppress their oppressors. This is not a difficult thing to see in our society. In the following example, it is not necessarily the formerly oppressed who oppress, but rather society as a whole that oppresses the oppressors, without any basis for the oppression. Anecdotal evidence from my own life is a great example of this. When it came time to go to college, someone from my socioeconomic background was looking for scholarships or grants. An upper-middle-class white male with slightly above-average grades in high school would have a very difficult time finding funding for his education other than his own income. Ultimately, as happened for me and a few friends, they rely on their parents to pay for college, which may or may not be entirely feasible. A woman in the same socio-economic situation would still have a somewhat difficult time, as was the case for my sister. A minority would have a relatively easy life, especially if they get good grades or play sports. If my family belonged to the middle class, the situation for me would change for the worse, for a woman it would become easier, and a minority would have no problems. The lower the socioeconomic class of any group other than white males, the easier it is to have money thrown at me for college, making my demographic marginalized and therefore oppressed. A stronger example of the transformation of the oppressed into oppressors is the current form of feminist movement. The Onion recently published an article satirizing the movement, and satire is a great way to convey absurdities. “I understand why some people might believe that the only way to advance women's rights is to massacre every man on the planet, but this kind of radical, explicitly murderous position, which, as far as I can tell, is an aspect fundamental of feminism, is exactly what makes me hesitate to call myself a feminist. (Onion) This reactionary form of feminism perpetuates oppression, and the article is not that far from the truth. Rawls, I think, answers the question of oppression better. He says, in principle 2(b), that everyone should have a chance of attaining any position. It is not based on gender, social group, race, etc., but on merit. When it comes to justice for society, universal, rather than relative, justice is necessary. Society changes, of course, but what is current does not change. By saying that everything must be for the benefit of the less fortunate, Rawls covers all forms of oppression exposed by Young. Using a universal approach, we can look back and say that certain actions were unjust; whereas a relativist approach would attempt to justify something by claiming that it was the norm at that time. The example that immediately comes to mind concerns Joseph Smith marrying a girl who was only fourteen years old. When this is brought up among church members, they try to justify it by saying that it was not that uncommon in those days (it was rare). Societal norms change, but what changes doesn't change everything..