Introduction
In almost every society in the contemporary world, the issue of justice and fairness has become a thorn in the fresh because no matter what regime is in place, there are a group of people who claim that they are being discriminated. Therefore, it is quite evident that John Rawls invented the theory of justice and fairness so that he could provide a solution to the people who are always complaining about a particular issue.
One of the main goals of his theory was to demonstrate to the members of the society what would happen if the entire society embraced the issue of justice. Once this is done, John Rawls argued that the whole society would be morally transformed. That is treating every one as equal to the other regardless of his or her class, race, and tribe.
Definition of Distributive Justice
According to Kymlicka (p 16), distributive justice is entirely concerned with looking at how resources in the society are distributed to all that are in need of them. This means that if a society is to have welfare for its people, it must ensure that all age groups are included in such welfare. If otherwise is the case then he points out that such a society would be regarded as not having a distributive justice.
For instance, it has been known in some countries like the United States of America that the government usually takes care of the elderly. However, the youths who are the majority are usually not given a priority as the aged. Thus, basing on Kymlicka’s definition the United States society can be regarded as not having a distributive justice on its people.
Rawls’ argument on liberalism
In his argument of liberalism, Rawls points out that although people in every society seems to adhere to some of the laid down rules and regulations, there is still some issues that affects them when it comes to the administration of justice. He has argued that in such a case people need to have the so called religious tolerance.
That is, although different people have different views regarding religion, the others still accommodate those with divergent views and that is way they are able to move together in peace. He says that liberalism does not accept nor deny any doctrines that are comprehensive.
In addition to that, he claims that principles of justice which forms the basis of rules of engagement must be in a position to make sure that justice is accorded to every one in the society without discriminating against others. According to him, political liberalism is very important when it comes to realizing a society that is free from wrangles and conflict amongst its members.
In the intuitive argument, Kymlicka (p 28) argues that John Rawls has identified that lack of equal opportunities is fair if it applies to every member of the society. That is everyone has an opportunity to progress in the society depending on his or her efforts. As a result he claims that inequalities in the society can be said to be just if there are no social factors placed on the way to deter an individual from progressing.
Rawls’ Social contract argument
In regard to the social contract, John Rawls argued that justice is made of principles that would be regarded as being fair and offering equal opportunities to all people without discriminating on the basis of race, religion, or even tribe. Following these views he has a result referred these views as the principles of justice and fairness to all.
In the liberty principle, he pointed out that all people should be entitled to equal rights with a similar liberty to the rest of the people. This idea of social contract can be said to be applicable when people are allowed to do what they want willingly; that is there would be no force exerted on people to perform certain tasks, and that such actions are made out of sound mind.
Rawls’ Difference Principle Argument
According to Rawls, the Difference Principle applies that people are able to provide solutions to their problems after being faced by them in their normal state. That is when problems arises in an area where one is used to, it is easier to solve such a problem other than when it arises in another setting whereby one is not used to. According to Kymlicka (p24), Difference Principle gives room for the factors such as natural talents to continue inequalities.
Thus according to him this is wrong since all people possess talents and no one should use his or her talent to discriminate others of ‘inferior natural talents’. As a result he argues that if inequalities are to be to the benefit of the least well-off, they must compensate not only for less social and economic goods, but also for less natural goods talents, abilities, and health. Thus, according to him this principle does not entirely reduce these inequalities.
It is therefore the responsibilities of the people in any given society to sit back and reflect on what should be done in order to appreciate each other for who they are and not what they have. When this is achieved issues of discrimination will be long gone and that people will live in peace and harmony with one another.
What is the moral importance of health care in relation to Rawls’ list of “primary goods which includes equal opportunity?
In the world there are those things that are known to comprise of the primary goods. These things are very essential for the continued survival of any human being. They include food, clothing and shelter. Without any of these things life can be very challenging and at times it can lad to death for instance.
According to John Rawls, however, there are things referred to as the natural primary goods and they include health and intelligence. According to him every human being ought to have these things to promote their survival. He argues that these things should be excluded from social justice because their distribution is not determined by the society directly. According to him primary goods is made up of the following things; income and wealth, freedom of movement and choice, powers, and self respect.
In his arguments Maffettone (p 17) points out that Rawls have said that primary goods have a number of purposes. At first, he observes that primary goods are subjects of the justice system. In his remarks he notes that all the societies in the world use these parts as the foundations of administering justice to the people.
Secondly, the primary goods are used as the basis for making interpersonal comparisons about welfare. Primary goods have also been noted to help the people know the types of claims that they can make to their government especially when the issue of injustices resurfaces.
From the above remarks health care can be said to be of moral importance in that, it has been used as a tool of discriminating other people from such services. For instance it has been noted in a number of countries, that regimes have been neglecting areas that opposes them and thus allocation of health facilities is not done. As a result people are forced to travel for a long distance to seek such health services.
The other moral importance of health care is that preventing and treating of the diseases as well as disability. According to Bruera (p 95), this means that by ensuring the people’s health is good, it helps them to be part and parcel of the welfare of the society. This goes hand in hand with the equal opportunity because such people are denied a chance that is accorded to other people in other areas of their country.
According to Rawls’ conception of distributive justice, when are health inequalities unjust?
The health condition of every human being is paramount for the continued development of a society. As a result, the government should make sure that health facilities are close to the people so as every time when an individual falls sick he or she is given a quick medical attention from a qualified doctor.
It is worth noting that distributive justice as earlier noted is entirely concerned with looking at how resources in the society are distributed to all that are in need of them. As a result of this Bruera (p 121) argues that health inequalities can be unjust if one group of people for example the elderly and the vulnerable in the society are allocated all the resources at the expense of other groups.
For example in some of the European countries the governments usually sets aside a certain amount of money so that the retired people can be taken care of. According to Rawls the government is not being just in such a scenario because other groups of people may be denied some services owing to huge budget allocation on the aged.
Furthermore he points out that, allocating health facilities in a certain region while leaving others without is an act of distributive injustice. Since the government knows very well the needs of the people based on its administrators at the grass root, it should allocate such facilities accordingly. That is the health facilities should be delocalized so that more and more people can be attended to by the health officials.
How can we meet competing health care needs under the allocation based on age system?
Different age groups requires different type of medical care from the government and therefore it is the sole responsibility of the government to make sure that institutions are built to cater for the needs of these kinds of people. One way of ensuring that the country is able to meet the increasing demands from people of all ages is to make sure that government forms a ministry that will be solely responsible for the groups.
For instance we can have the ministry of the aged that will address the needs of these people and the others be left under the ministry of health. This will go along way in making the services available to all the parties concerned. Through the ministry of the aged for instance funds could be channeled to not only to cater for their health but also their well being.
Addition of more doctors in the hospitals could also go along way in helping the meet the increasing demand for health services. According to Maffettone (p 21) more doctors will ensure more people are attended at any particular time. Addition of health facilities has been cited as a possible remedy in reducing the number of people seeking health care per hospital countrywide.
Critic of the Rawls’ work
Although Rawls’ work can be regarded as comprehensive by some people, there are others who feel that Rawls’ work was not up to the standards. For instance, Robert Paul Wolf criticized his theory of justice by saying that the theory was being apologetic to the leaders who do not abide to his views. Moreover, others such as Allan blamed Rawls for his failure to give reasons as to why the natural light existed in his theory.
Conclusion
From the discussion above it is evident that Rawls’ work was very comprehensive and elaborate. It is clear that at his time no one had thought of illustrating and explaining the justice system in the world. In his work we have been able to get some insights on how the members of the society should relate to one another in order to maintain peace and stability.
If people abide to his opinion, then the society would continue thriving no matter how the situation becomes. In regard to the issue of justice people should learn that we are all equal before our God and therefore we should treat each other in a way that we would like to be treated.
Works Cited
Maffettone, Sebastiano. Rawls: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010.
Kymlicka, Will. Contemporary political philosophy: an introduction. Michigan: Clarendon Press, 1990.
Bruera, Eduardo. Democracy and healthcare policy. Connecticut: ProQuest, 2008.