Apply Miller's discussion of social justice to a brief analysis of the two contrasting theories of social justice you developed for Blog2. (Not to exceed four (4) thoughtful paragraphs).
Miller, D. (1999) "The Scope of Social Justice." In: Principles of social justice. Imprint Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press.
My first theory of Social Justice was that it would be fair to ask one person of the population to be affected by all the bad things in life in order for the other people to be affected by the good. According to Miller Justice must be blind to personal preferences. In my understanding I analyzed this viewpoint as saying the least valuable people to the community as a whole should indeed take most of the disadvantages in the society. It is viewed as justice that the more valuable people have more advantages because of their better input into the society. These people who continue their education in order to get a better job in the future did so for their own benefit because they knew the outcome. This would make them one of the more valuable people in the society to get more of the advantages.
Also the distribution of the advantages and disadvantages should not be distributed by one single power. For example the governing body of Omelas should not decide who the person is who gets locked away so the rest may prosper. In fact it should be the basic structure of society that decides who that is. For example someone who is too poor and without a job will be the one with the disadvantages placed on them because of the job market in the society as opposed to being chosen randomly. Also there are other reasons that person is placed into that position such as the business they worked for shut down or they laid off people.
My second theory of Social Justice was that the advantages and disadvantages of society should be distributed among the population evenly. According to Millers opinion about value to the society affecting the advantages placed on you, there is no way for this theory to function. In other words for this theory to work the people who do more work like bosses who were higher educated would make the same money and benefits as the Janitor who only had a high school education. It seems like a cruel thing to say but it is essentially what this theory is suggesting through the equality of all the people.
Also the distributions among the society cannot be equal according to Miller in the sense that it isn't a violation of the individuals personal freedoms. For example it is not a disadvantage upon one person to not be able to afford a luxury like a yacht because it is not one of the basic requirements of humanity expected for each person to receive. In the realistic universe not everyone can afford but if everything was distributed evenly it is believed that everyone would have the opportunity to own such a luxury however the market of these objects would crash. There would be no sign of social status in the world through these objects. Depending on your opinion this may be a good or bad thing but I believe that Miller thinks it would be a bad thing because of the example of the boss should be making money because of the things he did in his life to put him in that position. People should have to earn the advantages provided in life as opposed to an equal society being forced to provide it to them without them having to try.
No comments:
Post a Comment