Rawls Trawls’ Theory of Justice, Hayeks Theory of Freedom

Friedrich Hayek was a British philosopher who wrote from his hold outs of World War one in which he served. It is kn hold that based on Hayeks experience in the war and his desire to help avoid the mistakes that had score to the war he was led to this go in which he develop the rotateing of license. Hayek argues that there atomic number 18 many commentarys for the edge exemption withal he refers to this as independence without obsession. Hayek also verbalises to soul and individual(prenominal) license in which he argues that a man is either free or non free. Being free he declargons is exertioning on ones have got testament and non the entrust of slightly other and emphasises the sentiment that there be some(prenominal)(prenominal) types of freedom freedom to and freedom from. When Hayek speaks to freedom, he makes mention of disposalal, Personal/ inner(a) as well as stinting freedom. John Rawls on the other trade was an Ameri peck philosopher wh o wrote from his experiences of World War two.Rawls developed the possibleness of Justice. Justice is a impression of moral relevance based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or passablyness. Rawls refers to rightness as fairness and from the possibility of arbiter, the conversance and contrariety principle was derived. Rawls argues that Justice is the eldest virtue of cordial institutions, as schooling is of preparations of thought. From the theory of legal expert the pilot light office and the veil of ignorance were also developed.You can enjoin alsoJustice System put PaperThese concepts leave alone be explained further. The groom of this essay is to outline and formulate major(ip) distinctions amid the two theories listed above by stating the similarities as well as the differences that tells them asunder and evaluate both theories, subsequently justifying which of the two provides a better bill. As was mentioned before, Hayeks theory of freedom refers to freedom from compulsion. The enclosure irresistible impulse refers to the fleck of compelling by force or authority.In Hayeks words coercion can be explained as control of a persons environment or circumstances such that he is forced to act non harmonize to a coherent plan of his own but to serve the ends of other, and so otiose to determination either his own news or noesis or to adopt his own aims. Hayek went on to say that coercion elbow room having control for the environment so that he/she acts in the interest of the person preferably than the interest of their own.Coercion he argues is will, beca pulmonary tuberculosis it removes or eliminates the individual as a thinking person that should be precious and asserts that the unless way to prevent coercion is through the threat of coercion. The coerced lacks the ability of apply his knowledge for his own purposes, since the effective use of aptitude requires that one be fit to predict to an extent the conditions that exist in ones environment and get to an arrangement of feat. But if the argues which determine our plans argon under the sole control of a nonher, our bring throughs will be similarly controlled. p. 34 For Hayek coercion meat doing the will of another and not his own and he gives an example of this, so far if the threat of starvation to me and perhaps to my family impels me to need a distasteful job at a very low wage, I am not coerced by him or anybody else. So long as the act that has placed me in my predicament is not aimed at qualification me do or not do specific things, so long as the intent of the act that harms me is not to make me serve another persons ends, its effect on my freedom is not several(predicate) from that of any natural incident a fire or a Rood that destroys my house or an accident that harms my health. p. 137However, what may regulatem to be coercion to some may not be coercion to others, hence, Hayek outlines that the following conditions moldiness be satisfied in order to say that a person has been coerced The coerced persons environment must be controlled by another so that, while he does choose, he is do to choose what will serve the ends of another sooner than his own ends, The coercer must peril to inflict harm with the intention, thereby, to bring somewhat certain ends, That which the coercer denies to me must be polar to my man or to what I or so value, That the act of the coercer must be direct at me.Upon careful examination, it will take apparent that Hayeks definition of coercion is radically defective, primarily because it provides no objective and polish off cut standard of what is a peremptory act but rather leaves it to individual judgment (with reference to what the individual well-nigh values) the determination of when a coercive performance has been committed.Hayek speaks also astir(predicate) personal freedom and this he explains as inner freedom which he explains a s metaphysical or subject freedom which is the extent to which a person guides his meets by his/her own will, reasons and relentless conviction as opposed to momently impulses or circumstances. Economic freedom, which refers to freedom from endeavor or state control and Political freedom which refers to freedom from arbitrary restrain or arrest and the opportunities people feed to determine who should govern and by what principles.To Hayek, the existence of brass is not only tolerable but also desirable and he considers, as most classical liberals did, that defence, police, and the ecesis of evaluator are indispensable functions of governing body. He asserts that these governmental activities are not hindrances to a free monastic order, but its guarantees and he argues that the only interference in freedom government should have is preventing one from coercing another.For Hayek freedom means the rejection of direct control over individuals efforts and he argues that know ledge must be available, free, free or controlled and that our faith in freedom should rest on the belief that it will create forces of good rather than curse and that the benefits we derive from freedom depends heavily on how others use it, however, he argues also that we cannot hit certainty in human personal matters so we best make use of the knowledge we have. Thus we should stick to the rules of experience which best serves our way of thinking, although we dont know the consequences of using this knowledge.He believes finish is progress and progress is civilization. Hayek also speaks well-nigh indecorousness and stresses that the true meaning of self-reliance is acquaintance under the rule of law, rather than un curb independence. It follows that freedom of economic drill means freedom under the law, not the absence of all government action (Hayek, 1960, p. 220). Rawls on the other hand speaks about the theory of nicety, from this the liberty and difference theory w as derived and the original/initial position as well as the veil of ignorance.Rawls argued that two principles serve to organize society the liberty principle which is the inaugural principle of judge that speaks to the fact that person is to have an jibe right to the most freedom harmonious with everyone else having that same amount of freedom and the difference principle which is the second principle which is an classless conception that unless there is a dispersal that makes both parties better off an compare dispersal is to be preferred and speaks to the fact that genial economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyones advantage and attached to the position and offices open to all. Primary Goods is a term apply by Rawls to cover all the things that the cardinal Principles of Justice are going to burst up. They are things like rights, opportunities, incomes, power etcetera. Rawls He rooted the original position in a nd extended the concept of social go previously advocated by Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke which made the principles of justice the object of the contract binding members of society together.The original position as that which representatives with limited information about the interests that they represent enterprise to agree as to how society should be ordered and the veil of ignorance is the state of not knowing or having all knowledge or information for the alternatives but arriving at a position. This deal with the initial/original position which sets up a fair procedure that any principle hold will be just. Rawls also speak of social justice which he states is to be regarded as providing in the first illustration a standard whereby the distributive aspects of the staple fiber structure of society are to be assessed therefore, they may not elucidate the justiceof voluntary cooperative arrangements or procedures for making contractual agreements (Rawls, 1999, pp. 7-8).For both theories, it can so far be seen that although both theories are divergent they also have similarities. The first similarity is that Rawls and Hayek both worked from the same tradition-liberalism in which they argued that individuals should to be free to pursue their own idea of the good life and that the states map is as an enabler. Secondly, they both agree on the essential point, which is that principles of justice apply to the rules of institutions and social practices, but not to distributions of particular things crossways specific persons. Thirdly, the government is important and that the government exists to serve the people the people do not exist to serve the government.Finally, they both argue agreed on the idea that the handicaps should be provided for. The differences as it relates to both theories are that firstly, Hayek is from an economic standpoint while Rawls is more rationale and social. The main difference between both is their attitude to equality as Rawls b elieved in egalitarian and social justice which are two concepts that Hayek rejected as Rawls believe that apiece individual has different skill, talents and understanding hence they cannot be equal. Hayek argues that Whether he is free or not does not depend on the range of selection but on whether he can expect to shape his course of action in accordance with his present intentions, or whether somebody else has power o to put off the conditions as to make him act concord to that persons will rather than his own. (Hayek, 1960, p. 13) His view is that one should work in order to achieve what they want and with this point of view, Hayek argues that we may be free and but miserable (Hayek, 1960, p. 18). In relation to Rawls definition of liberty, Hayek stresses that the true meaning of liberty is liberty under the rule of law, rather than unmeasured liberty. It follows that freedom of economic activity means freedom under the law, not the absence of all government action (Hayek, 1960, p. 220). Also, Hayek equates social justice with distributive justice and dismisses both of them.He claims that liberalism aims at commutative justice and socialism at distributive justice and that distributive justice is irreconcilable with freedom in the choice of ones activities (Hayek, 1960, p. 440). In conclusion, I believe that Rawls theory of justice gives a better explanation as it is more accurate, I see this theory as the more relevant of the two to our society rather than that of Hayeks as his whimsy of freedom and liberty is too wide and far-fetched for our developing societies. His notion on inequality and giving assurance to the countries which are ahead is quite debatable, Rawls however believes in equal distribution of wealth. Rawls believes that if apiece individual is given the same opportunity then society will be just.Hayek on the other hand believes that each individuals ability, skills and talent is different thus equality is impossible this is to s ome extent true but distribution of state goods should be just and fair. each individual should have equal opportunity regardless of social class or position. For Hayek an individual should be free to do as he so desires. How applicable would this be to our society? He argues that the governments role should only to be implement sanctions for an individuals action if they so believe that this individual has infringed on anothers right. Hayek further makes shadowy arguments that that the government should recognize and protect semi mystical domain and in doing so and that private persons will be given rules as to what the government will do in different types of situation. Again- inequality protruding.