Submitted By NosheenMahmood
Words: 2438
Pages: 10

Rawl’s is concerned with the ligitamacy of global coercion than he is with the arbitrariness of the fates of different countries. Rawl’s siding with a form of political liberalism.
Rawls view is indifferent to material prosperity which makes it a distinct view.
Rawls conception of a people led him to reject international egalitarianism
Justice as fairness- basic moral structure of modern society.
‘ a just society will be a fair scheme of cooperation among citizens regarded as free and equal’
Strong egalitarian proviso which state the benefits and burdens should not be based on the deepest level on citizens’ race, gender, class of origin or endowment of natural talents.
Rawls- social goods will not be grounded in factors ‘arbitrary from a moral point of view.’
Two key aspects of the original position. The first being that all citizens equal basic rights and liberties and secondly, all citizens have equal opportunities for obtaining positions of power , and that any inequalities of income and wealth work to the greatest beneft of the worst-off members of society.
Rawls and the cosmopolitan egalitarians
For Rawlsian’s global justice should be just as liberal and just as egalitarian as justice as justice as fairness as the domestic system.
Beitz and Pogge- there is an international basic structure just as there is a domestic structure with political, economic and cultural institutions linking citizens of different countries together in a worldwide system of social cooperation. This effects the life chances of people within the system and thus a theory is needed for specificity of what counts as a fair distribution of the benefits and burden s of global cooperation.
Beitz and Pogge proposed a direct cosmopolitan transposition which replaced the idea of citizens of the world . A just system where all global citizens are free and equal. A distributive principle that would overcome arbitrariness.
Idea that inequalities work to the greatest benefit of the world’s worst off individuals. Beitz raises the key issue that for such a system to be effective there is a requirement of restructuring of the world’s economic institutions
Rawls’ article on the matter states that the global original position should not be though to represent individual human beings, but should represent each party in the global original position should represent an entire domestic society of ‘peoples’ 9
The primary principles of justice of fairness looked very familiar and largely traditional principles from the history and usages of international law and practice. 10
Pogge- I am at loss to explain Rawl’s quick endorsement of a bygone status quo’ 11
Rawls rejection of Global Egalitarianism
Rawls: a well- ordered society should be just by its own lights within the bare constarints of political legitimacy, and people should be good neighbours to each other
This means that on a domestic level each government must respect human rights, apply its own laws impartially and be responsive to the grievances of its citizens
Principle of Assistance: wealthier peoples have a duty to assist those ‘burdened’ societites which because of natural disaster or an impoverished political culture are not able to sustain minimal conditions of legitimate government
Rawls: does not mention any principle to reduce the gap between wealthy and poor beyond this principle 12
Rawls criticises Beit’s global differene principle as menaing to contiuosly without end’ 13
For Rawl’s to make such an argument seems odd as his principle of distributive justice would be flawed for the same reason.
Rawl’s poses the example of two state that start off at the same point yet one state industralises more than the other. It would be unfair to tax the richer state and give to the poor when they have received the same start. Nozick uses an analogous example against the principles of justice as fairness.
He state that there is a factory work who saves the money he receives and a shepherd who lives a