I will talk about modern society and its affirmation of the principle of equality, a principle that has failed to prevent the social inequalities that we have to struggle with day after day in a world where people are worth what they have and are not, unfortunately, we are all born free and with fundamental rights; But the current dearth of opportunities to gain space in society has echoed our right to work increasingly remotely as unemployment rates rise and countries declare themselves in crisis. Why are we forced to live by the law and how can we say that our government is founded on the consent of the governed if we have never signed a social contract with it? John Locke states that “We have tacitly given 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 ourselves what 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 in Society is or will be. If no one knew anything we would decide in an original position of equality since no one would have greater negotiating power, then the ideologies we agree with would be the right ones. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThis is the idea of ​​social agreement proposed by Rawls: a hypothetical agreement in a situation that originates in equality. It asks us to put aside our moral and religious beliefs and put away 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 liberties for all citizens, such as freedom of expression or religion, and social and economic equality that will allow for inequalities that serve to improve the situation of less prosperous members of society. As for the moral limits of contracts, an agreement does not always have to be fair. Just because people ratify a constitution does not mean that what it promulgates is right, nor does it mean that we should violate our agreements when we feel like it. Consent creates an obligation or requires there to be any profit or escrow component, there may be cases where 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 just contract is one that has both ideals and intrinsically equal power and knowledge, the paradox is that a hypothetical agreement behind the veil of ignorance is not a deviant form of a real contract, and therefore morally weaker, but a pure form of contract real contract, and therefore more morally powerful than it. One of the two principles of justice is freedom, which is based on the rejection of utilitarianism and the agreement on the right to freedom of conscience and consent, while the difference principle will allow certain economic inequalities (wages) if they give some advantage to those who find themselves in the most unfavorable position in society. Therefore the redistribution of income and opportunities should not be based on morally arbitrary factors. The lack of fairness can be resolved by correcting social and economic disadvantages, but although the meritocratic conception corrects some disadvantages it is not fair at all, for example in a competition even if all the competitors start from the same pointStarting, there will be someone who have more ability to run than others. If this worries us about inequality, could we propose putting lead in the slippers of those who run the fastest? Some critics of egalitarianism say “the only alternative to the meritocratic market is a society of leveling equality that imposes burdens on talent.” The difference principle allows for income inequality as long as such incentives are necessary to improve the lot of the unsuccessful. Since the incentives would generate economic growth by improving situations for those below. However, regarding effort, Rawls rejects the meritocratic theory of justice because the natural aptitudes of individuals are not their work. But then the hard work that goes into cultivating one's competition and effort do not deserve a reward, Rawls says that even effort can be the product of having grown up in favorable circumstances, this is influenced by contingencies that cannot be attributed to us. What meritocracy believes is that you deserve to be paid for the outcome or contribution, not for the effort. Rawls argues that “distributive justice has nothing to do with rewarding moral demerits, although this conflicts with our way of defining justice.” Distributive justice does not consist of rewarding moral merit, it does not mean that those who work hard do not correspond to the rewards given to them. But there is a difference between the morally deserved right and the right to legitimate expectations, an acquired right, which is generated only when some rules have been established: the skills that can compete more successfully are not the work of everyone and the qualities that a society values ​​more at a given time are morally arbitrary. On the other hand, Rawls argued that the distribution of natural aptitudes, the whim of social circumstances, nature is not just or unjust. They are simply natural facts. The way in which institutions deal with these facts is fair or unfair. Rawls proposes to share fate with others and to take advantage of the accidents of Nature. This represents the most attractive defense of an equal society. We cannot have a just society by maximizing utility or guaranteeing freedom of choice. To arrive at a just society we must think together about the meaning of the good life and create a public culture that welcomes the discrepancies that will inevitably emerge. Claiming a policy of the common good must require: an intense community feeling (which must be cultivated starting from schools and educational centres), establishing moral limits to markets (we are already suffering the consequences of this lack of scruples), greater and fair distribution of income and wealth (which strengthens the solidarity required by democratic citizenship), reconstruction of the infrastructure of civil life (in particular by strengthening public services) and finally a policy based on moral commitment which will constitute a more promising foundation of a society right compared to mere relativism or avoidance. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Sandel's critique may have some flaws, as he claims that Rawls' theory presupposes the existence of a community whose values ​​and concerns are implicit in the reasoning of the people in the original position, so it is not possible to claim that the deliberation on the principles of justice is the product of a deliberation carried out by independent actors, without constraints or social commitments of any kind. But this was something that Rawls himself had recognized in a series of lectures in 1980: the "Dewey lectures",,.