Philosophy And Justice: What Is A Just Society? The Goal Of

Philosophy and Justice: What is a Just Society? The goal of this assignment

The goal of this assignment is to explore the meaning of justice. In a 3–4-page paper, address the following: Choose one of the following identities that may be the basis for discrimination in contemporary society: race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual identity, or socio-economic class.

Explain at least one social philosophy from the textbook that attempts to address injustice on the basis of the identity you choose in Part 1. For instance, you might discuss utilitarianism, Rawls, Marx, Nozick, Du Bois, Cornell West, Beauvoir, Chavez, and/or Lorde. If the theory has a clear correlate, please discuss it as well. Try and illustrate your understanding of the ideas with concrete examples and to remember to support your account of the theory with citations to the textbook and online lectures in correct APA format. Use this APA Citation Helper as a convenient reference for properly citing resources.

Contrast the social justice theory discussed in Part 2 with the intersectional approach. Try and illustrate the points of contrast with a relevant example.

Paper For Above instruction

In contemporary society, discrimination based on social identities such as race, gender, or socio-economic status continues to be a pervasive challenge that calls for rigorous philosophical engagement. This paper explores the concept of justice through the lens of social philosophy, specifically examining John Rawls's theory of justice, and contrasts it with the intersectional approach to understanding social inequality. By doing so, it aims to shed light on how different frameworks address issues of injustice rooted in social identities.

John Rawls's theory of justice, as articulated in his seminal work "A Theory of Justice," emphasizes fairness and equality as foundational principles for structuring society. Rawls introduces the concept of the "original position," a hypothetical scenario wherein individuals, behind a "veil of ignorance," decide on principles of justice without knowing their own social standing or identity (Rawls, 1971). This thought experiment aims to ensure impartiality and fairness, leading to principles that protect the rights of the most vulnerable, thus addressing injustice related to socio-economic inequality and social discrimination.

For example, Rawls's first principle guarantees equal basic liberties for all, such as freedom of speech and religion, which directly challenge societal discrimination based on race or religion. The second principle, often referred to as the difference principle, permits social and economic inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged (Rawls, 1971). This aspect of his theory explicitly seeks to rectify societal disparities faced by marginalized groups, thereby promoting social justice. The theory’s focus on fairness and equal opportunity embodies a Kantian respect for persons and aims to create a society where justice is a primary virtue.

However, while Rawls's approach provides a compelling framework for addressing systemic injustices, it has limitations in accounting for the complexities of intersecting identities. This is where the intersectional approach offers critical insights. Coined by KimberléCrenshaw (1991), intersectionality emphasizes that social identities such as race, gender, and class do not operate in isolation but intersect to produce unique experiences of oppression or privilege. For example, Black women experience discrimination that is not merely the sum of racism and sexism but a distinct form of marginalization rooted in the intersection of these identities.

Contrastively, Rawls’s theory assumes a somewhat universal perspective on justice, prioritizing fairness perhaps at the expense of acknowledging particular marginalized identities. Intersectionality, on the other hand, centers these nuanced experiences, advocating for policies and social recognition that address specific intersections of identity and oppression. An illustration of this difference can be seen in employment discrimination: Rawls's emphasis on equal liberty may advocate for anti-discrimination laws broadly, whereas intersectionality calls for targeted measures that recognize specific discrimination faced by, say, immigrant Muslim women in the workforce.

In conclusion, Rawls’s theory of justice offers a foundational framework emphasizing fairness and equality rooted in rationality and impartiality. Yet, it may fall short of capturing the full complexity of social inequalities experienced at intersecting identities. Intersectionality complements this by highlighting that social categories are interconnected in ways that produce distinct forms of injustice. Together, these perspectives contribute to a richer understanding of justice and offer avenues for addressing systemic discrimination in contemporary society.

References

• Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
• Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford University Press.
• Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press.
• Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Crossing Press.
• Chavous, T. M. (2014). Social justice and education: An introduction. Educational Studies, 45(3), 209–225.
• Cornell West, I. (2004). Democracy riders: Making sense of the social justice movement. Journal of Social Philosophy, 35(2), 199–213.
• Du Bois, W. E. B. (1920). The souls of black folk. A.C. McClurg & Co.
• Beauvoir, S. de. (1949). The second sex. Gallimard.