Equality in the Framework of Justice
| Název práce v češtině: | |
|---|---|
| Název v anglickém jazyce: | Equality in the Framework of Justice |
| Klíčová slova: | Equality, justice, John Rawls, G.A. Cohen, contemporary theories of justice, egalitarianism, socialism, liberalism |
| Klíčová slova anglicky: | Equality, justice, John Rawls, G.A. Cohen, contemporary theories of justice, egalitarianism, socialism, liberalism |
| Akademický rok vypsání: | 2013/2014 |
| Typ práce: | diplomová práce |
| Jazyk práce: | angličtina |
| Ústav: | Katedra politologie (23-KP) |
| Vedoucí / školitel: | Janusz Salamon, Ph.D. |
| Řešitel: | skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem |
| Datum přihlášení: | 04.02.2014 |
| Datum zadání: | 03.01.2015 |
| Datum a čas obhajoby: | 29.01.2015 00:00 |
| Místo konání obhajoby: | IPS FSV UK, U kříže 8/661 158 00 Praha 5 – Jinonice |
| Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: | 04.01.2015 |
| Datum proběhlé obhajoby: | 29.01.2015 |
| Oponenti: | Mgr. Jakub Franěk, Ph.D. |
| Kontrola URKUND: | |
| Zásady pro vypracování |
| According to the guidelines of FSV and IEPS |
| Seznam odborné literatury |
| Cohen, G. A. (2011). On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice, and Other Essays in Political Philosophy. Princeton University Press: New Jersey/US.
Cohen, G. A. (2008) Rescuing Justice and Equality. Harvard University Press: Massachusetts. Nagel, T. (1995). Equality and Partiality. Oxford University Press: New York. Nussbaum, M.C. (2007). Frontiers of Justice. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts. Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press: Massachusetts. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Harvard University Press: Massachusetts. Sandel, M.J. (2010). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. 2nd Revised edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Sandel, M.J. (2009). Justice: What is the Right Thing to Do? Farrar, Satraus and Giroux: New York Sen, K.A. (2010). The Idea of Justice. Penguin Books Ltd: London. |
| Předběžná náplň práce |
| Outline:
1. Introduction 2. Theoretical background and the definition of the concept of justice a. the review of the literature on the contemporary theories of justice 3. John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness as a contemporary theory of justice a. Original position b. Two principles of justice 4. “The Difference Principle” and the Concept of Equality a. Veil of Ignorance b. The Concept of Equality 5. Egalitarian/communitarian theories of justice a. Amartya Sen, the Idea of Justice b. Michael Sandel, Theory of Justice c. Martha Nussbaum, Theory of Justice 6. G.A. Cohen's Egalitarian Theory of Justice 7. Conclusions 8. References / Bibliography Topic Characteristics: The main claim defended in the thesis will be that justice requires equality. In elaborating and arguing for this claim, I will consider and critically engage with the relevant contemporary theories of justice, most notably John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness and the egalitarian theory of G. A. Cohen. My main critique will be directed against John Rawls’s theory of justice which includes two principles of justice. The first one is about the equality of basic rights and liberties. The second one that I intend to focus on in greater detail is the so called "difference principle". I think that the principle can be taken to justify inequality by offering a new way of distribution or regulation of wealth and income. In other words, in the context of the Rawlsian theory of just society equality comes from/by inequality. However the point is that since it may be argued that human beings are by nature self-seeking / self-interested / individualistic / utilitarian creatures, therefore in the context of a liberal society rational choices of human beings would not let them redistribute their wealth or income in the way Rawls envisage. Therefore, Rawls’s two principles of justice would not meet the requirements of a just society. Working hypotheses: 1. "Difference principle" justifies inequality by offering new way of distribution or regulation of wealth and income. 2. Rawls’s two principles of justice do not meet the requirements of a just society. 3. The first and the foremost requirement of justice is equality from an egalitarian point of view. 4. Justice requires greater equality than Rawls’s liberal-egalitarian state can deliver. |
| Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce |
| Outline:
1. Introduction 2. Theoretical background and the definition of the concept of justice a. the review of the literature on the contemporary theories of justice 3. John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness as a contemporary theory of justice a. Original position b. Two principles of justice 4. “The Difference Principle” and the Concept of Equality a. Veil of Ignorance b. The Concept of Equality 5. Egalitarian/communitarian theories of justice a. Amartya Sen, the Idea of Justice b. Michael Sandel, Theory of Justice c. Martha Nussbaum, Theory of Justice 6. G.A. Cohen's Egalitarian Theory of Justice 7. Conclusions 8. References / Bibliography Topic Characteristics: The main claim defended in the thesis will be that justice requires equality. In elaborating and arguing for this claim, I will consider and critically engage with the relevant contemporary theories of justice, most notably John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness and the egalitarian theory of G. A. Cohen. My main critique will be directed against John Rawls’s theory of justice which includes two principles of justice. The first one is about the equality of basic rights and liberties. The second one that I intend to focus on in greater detail is the so called "difference principle". I think that the principle can be taken to justify inequality by offering a new way of distribution or regulation of wealth and income. In other words, in the context of the Rawlsian theory of just society equality comes from/by inequality. However the point is that since it may be argued that human beings are by nature self-seeking / self-interested / individualistic / utilitarian creatures, therefore in the context of a liberal society rational choices of human beings would not let them redistribute their wealth or income in the way Rawls envisage. Therefore, Rawls’s two principles of justice would not meet the requirements of a just society. Working hypotheses: 1. "Difference principle" justifies inequality by offering new way of distribution or regulation of wealth and income. 2. Rawls’s two principles of justice do not meet the requirements of a just society. 3. The first and the foremost requirement of justice is equality from an egalitarian point of view. 4. Justice requires greater equality than Rawls’s liberal-egalitarian state can deliver. |