I will discuss modern society and its affirmation of the principle of equality, a principle that has failed to prevent the social inequalities that we must address struggling day after day in a world where people are valued for what they have and unfortunately are not. We are all born free and with fundamental rights; But the current lack of opportunities to gain space in society echoes our right to increasingly work remotely as unemployment rates rise and countries declare themselves in crisis. Why are we obligated to live by the law and how can we say that our government is based on the consent of the governed if we have never signed a social contract with them? John Locke states: “We have tacitly given our consent because we enjoy the advantages of having a government, we accept it.” The American political philosopher John Rawls argues that to think about justice, we must ask which ideologies we would agree with on an initial situation of equality. Then we must put on the veil of ignorance, we do not know what our position is or will be in society. If no one knows anything, we will decide from an original position of equality since no one will have higher bargaining power, so the ideologies we agree with will be the right ones. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay This is the idea of ​​social agreement that Rawls proposes: a hypothetical agreement in a situation having its origin in equality . He asks us to put aside our moral and religious convictions and put on the veil of ignorance. We will not choose a utilitarian system because behind the veil of ignorance we might be the repressed minority, nor a laissez-faire system because we would not want to be the poor affected by the free market. Ralws believes that two principles of justice would emerge: equal fundamental freedoms for all citizens, such as freedom of expression or worship, and social and economic equality which will allow inequalities which will serve to improve the situation of the less fortunate members. prosperous of society. Regarding the moral boundaries of contracts, an agreement does not have to be fair at all times. That people ratify a constitution does not mean that what it promulgates is right, nor does it mean that we should violate our agreements whenever we feel like it. Consent creates an obligation or requires that an item of profit or trust be deposited. There may be cases in which consent is not sufficient to create a morally binding obligation, while in others it may not be necessary. If we imagine the perfect contract, there should be two ideals: autonomy and reciprocity; a fair contract is one that has both ideals and inherently equal power and knowledge, the paradox is that a hypothetical agreement behind the veil of ignorance is not a deviated form of an actual contract, and therefore morally weaker, but a pure form of a real contract. real contract, and therefore morally more powerful than him. One of the two principles of justice is liberty, which is based on the rejection of utilitarianism and agreement on the right to freedom of conscience and consent, while the difference principle will allow certain and economic inequalities (wages) if they benefit the most disadvantaged people in society. The redistribution of income and opportunities should therefore not be based on morally arbitrary factors. THELack of fairness can be resolved by correcting social and economic disadvantages, but even if the meritocratic design corrects some disadvantages it is not at all fair, for example in a competition although all competitors start from the same starting point, it there will be some who have more skills to manage than others. If this worries us about inequalities, could we suggest putting lead in the slippers of those who run the most? Some critics of egalitarianism say that "the only alternative to the meritocratic market, society is a leveling equality that imposes ballast on the talented." The difference principle permits income inequality as long as such incentives are necessary to improve the lot of those who fail. Since the incentives would generate economic growth by improving the situation of those at the bottom. On the other hand, as for the effort Rawls rejects the meritocratic theory of justice because the natural aptitudes of individuals are not the work of them. But then hard work that goes into cultivating one's own competition and effort does not deserve reward, Rawls says that even effort can be the product of being raised in favorable circumstances, in this influence the contingencies that do not cannot be assigned. for us. What meritocracy believes is that it deserves to be paid for achievement or contribution, not for effort. Rawls argues that “distributive justice has nothing to do with rewarding moral demerits, even if that conflicts with how we define justice.” Distributive justice is not about rewarding moral merit, it does not mean that those who work hard do not match the rewards given to them. But there is a difference between what is morally deserved and the right to legitimate expectations, an acquired right, which is only generated when certain rules have been established: skills that can be competed with more successfully are not one's work and the qualities that a society values ​​most at any given time are morally arbitrary. On the other hand, Rawls claimed that the distribution of natural abilities, the whim of social circumstances, nature is neither just nor unjust. These are simply natural facts. The way institutions deal with these facts is fair or unfair. Rawls suggests sharing destiny with others and enjoying the accidents of Nature. This is the most attractive defense of an egalitarian society. We cannot have a just society by maximizing utility or guaranteeing freedom of choice. To achieve a just society, we must reason together about the meaning of a good life and create a public culture that welcomes the differences that will inevitably arise. To claim a policy of the common good, it is necessary: ​​an intense community feeling (which must be cultivated from schools and educational centers), the establishment of moral limits to markets (we are already suffering the consequences of this lack of scruples) , a greater and fair distribution of income and wealth (which reinforces the solidarity required by democratic citizenship), the reconstruction of the infrastructure of civic life (in particular the improvement of public services) and finally a policy based on moral commitment which will constitute a more promising foundation of a just society than simple relativism or circumvention. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Sandel's critique may have some flaws, as he asserts that Rawls's theory presupposes the existence of a community whose values ​​and concerns are implicit in the,.