Upload
chitoantonioching
View
222
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
human rights
Citation preview
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
From the past struggles of human beings against abuse and
discrimination, human rights as a concept was advocated. The
belief that everyone, by virtue of her or his humanity, is
entitled to certain human rights is fairly new.1 Its roots,
however, lie in earlier tradition and documents of many cultures;
it took the catalyst of World War II to propel human rights onto
the global stage and into the global conscience.2
Throughout much of history, people acquired rights and
responsibilities through their membership in a group – a family,
indigenous nation, religion, class, community, or state. In fact,
all societies, whether in oral or written tradition, have had
systems of propriety and justice as well as ways of tending to
the health and welfare of their members.3 However, the concept of
the human rights had only been discussed after it emerged as a
response to the felt need to curtail abuses against man.
Today, human rights philosophy is advocated throughout the
world. In fact, there is the Office of the United Nations High
1 Samuel Moyn, The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. Harvard University Press, 20102 http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/magna-carta.html3 Op. Cit. Samuel Mown
2
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) which represents the
world's commitment to universal ideals of human dignity.4 It has
a unique mandate from the international community to promote and
protect all human rights.
The philosophy of human rights attempts to examine the
underlying basis of the concept of human rights and critically
looks at its content and justification. Several theoretical
approaches have been advanced to explain how and why the concept
of human rights developed. One of which is the Theory based on
justice, the subject matter of this research paper.
The researcher is tasked in this study to discuss the Theory
of based on justice and its relation to human rights. The
succeeding pages of this paper will discuss in detail the
connotations of the concept of “human rights” and how it is
related to Theory Based on justice.
4 United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/WhoWeAre.aspx
3
Statement of the Problem
This study specifically aims to discuss the Theory based on
justice’s approach to human rights philosophy.
Specifically, this seeks to answer the following questions:
1. What is Human Rights?
2. What is Theory Based on Justice?
3. Why is the Theory Based on Justice regarded as one of
the fundamental theories and sources of Human Rights?
4. What is the importance of the Theory Based on Justice
in modern society?
5. How can the Theory Based on Justice be applied in the
Philippines?
4
Objectives of the Study
This study aims to discuss the Theory based on justice’s
approach to human rights philosophy.
Specifically, this aims to attain the following objectives:
1. To determine the meaning of human rights.
2. To know the meaning of theory based on justice.
3. To determine the reason why the Theory Based on
Justice is regarded as one of the fundamental
theories and sources of Human Rights.
4. To understand the importance of the Theory of Based
on Justice in modern society.
5. To determine the application of the Theory based on
justice in the Philippines
5
Significance of the Study
This study will be significant to the following:
ACADEME. This will significantly contribute to this sector
since findings of this study can be used as a ready reference on
topics dealing on human rights and its violations. This will also
inform the readers on the possible relationships that exists
between human rights and Theory based on Justice;
READERS/RESEARCHERS. Findings of this study will be
beneficial to this sector as this can be used as bases of their
researches. Besides, other topics on this study can also be the
subject of this research works.
LAW STUDENTS. Findings of this study can serve as an on hand
reference to law students in their law education.
COMMUNITY. Proceeds of this study will be beneficial to the
community, since the results there under might inform them their
basic human rights
6
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined both conceptually and
operationally to further grasps the meaning of this endeavor.
HUMAN RIGHTS. Human rights are rights inherent to all human
beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex,
national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any
other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights
without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated,
interdependent and indivisible.5
SOCIAL CONTRACT. The agreement among individuals by which
society becomes organized and invested with the right to secure
mutual protection and welfare.6
EGALITARIAN. Of, relating to, or upholding the doctrine of
the equality of mankind and the desirability of political,
social, and economic equality.7
5 Loc. Cit. OHCHR6 Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, by Random House, Inc7 Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers, 2003
7
UTILITARIAN. A person who believes the doctrine that the
morally correct course of action consists in the greatest good
for the greatest number, that is, in maximizing the total benefit
resulting, without regard to the distribution of benefits and
burdens.8
ECONOMIC INEQUALITY. The unequal distribution of household
or individual income across the various participants in an
economy. Income inequality is often presented as the percentage
of income to a percentage of population.9
CAPITALIST SYSTEM. An economic system in which the means of
production and distribution are privately or corporately owned
and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment
of profits gained in a free market.10
STATE OF NATURE. A concept used by social contract theory to
illustrate the primordial natural condition of human society
before the existence of a government.11
8 Ibid.9 Income Inequality Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/income-inequality.asp#ixzz3pUH1ngxE10 American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company11 Bryan Nelson, Western Political Thought: From Socrates to the Age of Ideology, Waveland Press, 1996
8
VEIL OF IGNORANCE. A device designed by John Rawls in order
to minimize the influence of selfish bias in attempting to
determine what would be just.12
12 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, p. 3-6 , the Belknap Press of Harvard university press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971
9
Chapter II
DISCUSSION
HUMAN RIGHTS
Human rights are moral principles that set out certain
standards of human behavior, and are regularly protected as legal
rights in national and international law. They are "commonly
understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is
inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."13
Human rights are thus conceived as universal and egalitarian. The
doctrine of human rights has been highly influential within
international law, global and regional institutions. Policies of
states and in the activities of non-governmental organizations
and have become a cornerstone of public policy around the world.
The idea of human rights suggests, "if the public discourse of
peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral
language, it is that of human rights." The strong claims made by
the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable
skepticism and debates about the content, nature and
justifications of human rights to this day. Indeed, the question
13 Loc. cit. OHCHR
10
of what is meant by a "right" is itself controversial and the
subject of continued philosophical debate.
Rights may be seen as emanating from various sources,
whether religion or the nature of man or the nature of society.
Modern rights theories cover a wide range of approaches, and this
clearly emphasizes the need to come to terms with the
requirements of an evolving legal system that cannot be totally
comprehended in terms of that system itself. 14
During the nineteenth century, states around the world have
acknowledged the importance of global interdependence.15 A number
of theories were entered related to piracy jure gentium – to stop
it and slavery - to bring about its abolition. Concern also with
the treatment of sick and wounded soldiers and with prisoners of
war developed in terms of international instrument while states
were required to observe certain minimum standards in the
treatment of aliens. In addition, certain agreements of a general
welfare nature were beginning to be adopted by the turn of the
century. The nineteenth century also appeared to accept a right
of humanitarian intervention, although its range and extent were
unclear.16
14 Malcom C. Shaw, INTERNATIONAL LAW FIFTH EDITION, p. 247 Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, 200315 Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics ,McGraw-Hill Higher Education,197916 Loc. Cit. Shaw
11
This dynamic process of concretization of basic principles
has been accompanied, particularly after the Second World War, by
impressive achievements in the field of the codification and
progressive development of international law. From its previous
state of amorphousness and imprecision, the law of nations has
grown into a highly organized system of rules.17
THEORY BASED ON JUSTICE
Rawls burst into prominence in 1958 with the publication of
his game-changing paper, “Justice as Fairness,” and the revival
of social contract theory. This led to a greatly developed book
version, A Theory of Justice, published in 1971, arguably the
most important book of American philosophy published in the
second half of the last century. Rawls makes it clear that his
theory, which he calls “justice as fairness,” assumes an
egalitarian, morally autonomous, rational agents, who are not
necessarily egoists. He also makes it clear early on that he
means to present his theory as a preferable alternative to that
of utilitarians.18
17 INTERNATIONAL LAW AS A LANGUAGE FORINTERNATIONAL RELATIONS18 Op. Cit. Rawls, pp. 12-26
12
He asks us to imagine persons in a hypothetical “initial
situation,” a term corresponding to the “state of nature” coined
by social contractualist, which he calls “the original position”
This is strikingly characterized by what Rawls calls “the veil of
ignorance.” To illustrate it, if you must decide on what sort of
society you could commit yourself to accepting as a permanent
member and were not allowed to factor in specific knowledge about
yourself—such as your gender, race, ethnic identity, level of
intelligence, physical strength, quickness and stamina, and so
forth—then you would presumably exercise the rational choice to
make the society as fair for everyone as possible, lest you find
yourself at the bottom of that society for the rest of your life.
In such a “purely hypothetical” situation, Rawls believes that we
would rationally adopt two basic principles of justice for our
society: “the first requires equality in the assignment of basic
rights and duties”, while the second holds that social and
economic inequalities.19
In terms of its epistemological status, Rawls says that the
original position is hypothetical in nature. Rawls argues that
these principles are in fact what the parties would agree upon if
they were in that hypothetical situation of the original
position. Rawls explains this by calling upon us “to imagine a
19 Ibid.
13
state of nature where we are blind as to our status or position
in society”. This includes, for all members of society, not
knowing where one would end up or which fortunes one gets in the
natural lottery. Under this veil of ignorance, the position of
equality is guaranteed. It ensures that those who might be able
to influence the process in their favor, due to their better
position in society, are unable to do so. This means, more
importantly, that justice is about “protecting the weak and
innocent” against the abuses of the strong and “binding the
powerful” to the full moral force of the law.
Here we see Rawls conceiving of justice, the primary social
virtue, as requiring equal basic liberties for all citizens and a
presumption of equality even regarding socio-economic goods. He
emphasizes the point that these principles rule out as unjust the
utilitarian justification of disadvantages for some on account of
greater advantages for others, since that would be rationally
unacceptable to one operating under the veil of ignorance. Rawls
is opposed to the teleological or consequentialist gambit of
defining the right in terms of “maximizing the good”; he rather
is committed to a “priority of the right over the good.” Justice
is not reducible to utility or pragmatic desirability. We should
notice that the first principle of justice, which requires
maximum equality of rights and duties for all members of society,
14
is prior in “serial or lexical order” to the second, which
specifies how socio-economic inequalities can be justified.20
Again, this is anti-utilitarian, in that no increase in
socio-economic benefits for anyone can ever justify anything less
than maximum equality of rights and duties for all. Thus, for
example, if enslaving a few members of society generated vastly
more benefits for the majority than liabilities for them, such a
bargain would be categorically ruled out as unjust.
THEORY BASED ON JUSTICE:
A FUNDAMENTAL THEORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Rawls in articulation of these two principles of justice,
illustrates his theory’s relation with the international
protection of human rights. He reformulates the first one in
terms of maximum equal liberty, writing that “each person is to
have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty
compatible with a similar liberty for others.” The basic
liberties intended concern such civil rights as are protected in
our constitution — free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of
conscience, the right to private property, the rights to vote and
20 Ibid.
15
hold public office, freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure,
etc.21
In this sense, he embody a belief that no government has the
power to curtail one’s basic right. However, there a lexical
priority of this which requires that it be categorical in that
the only justification for limiting any basic liberties would be
to enhance other basic liberties; for example, it might be just
to limit free access of the press to a sensational legal
proceeding in order to protect the right of the accused to a fair
trial.
Rawls restates his second principle to maintain that “social
and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are
both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and
(b) attached to positions and offices open to all.” Thus socio-
economic inequalities can be justified, but only if both
conditions are met.22
The first condition, “the difference principle,” takes
seriously the idea that every socio-economic difference
separating one member of society from others must be beneficial
to all, including the person ranked lowest. The second condition
is one of “fair equality of opportunity,” in that socio-economic
advantages must be connected to positions to which all members of
21 Ibid. pp. 60-6522 Ibid. pp. 75, 83
16
society could have access.23 An example to this second principle
is that the office of the presidency has attached to it greater
social prestige and income than is available to most of us but it
can be just only if assuming that all of us, as citizens, could
achieve that office with its compensations and that even those of
us at or near the bottom of the socio-economic scale benefit from
intelligent, talented people accepting the awesome
responsibilities of that office.
Just as the first principle must be lexically prior to the
second, Rawls also maintains that “fair opportunity is prior to
the difference principle.” Thus, if we have to choose between
equal opportunity for all and socio-economically benefiting “the
least advantaged” members of society, the former has priority
over the latter. Most of us today might be readily sympathetic
to the first principle and the equal opportunity condition, while
finding the difference principle to be objectionably egalitarian,
to the point of threatening incentives to contribute more than is
required. Rawls does consider a “mixed conception” of justice
that most of us would regard as more attractive “arising when the
principle of average utility constrained by a certain social
minimum is substituted for the difference principle, everything
else remaining unchanged.” But there would be a problem of
23 Ibid. pp. 302-303
17
fairly agreeing on that acceptable social minimum, and it would
change with shifting contingent circumstances. 24
In relation to the above, justice as fairness makes it a
moral imperative that the moral value of individual freedom far
outweighs the general welfare for if one person is to be
sacrificed for the good of all then that would be a violation of
the basic principle of justice as fairness. This is because,
according to Rawls, each person, from the point of view of
liberal justice, possesses an inviolable value that not even the
welfare of society can override.[7] In classical utilitarianism,
as we have said at the outset, the good consists in maximizing
overall welfare, even if that sacrifices someone. For
utilitarianism, general welfare is prioritized over the basic
liberty of each. This basically violates the person’s basic
autonomy – the person’s very essence – for he or she is reduced
to a mere means to an end in order for the majority to achieve
whatever they so desire.
The basic point is that in this condition of equal
opportunity for all, people can pursue their life-plans and
profit from the same, but they must contribute through taxes to
serve the worst off or the disadvantaged, an adjustment meant to
ensure that the worst off can have the opportunity to improve
their lives. This is what the famous difference principle calls
24 Ibid. p.316
18
for. Fairness in the liberal sense therefore means that justice
is served when we treat people as equals, “not by removing all
inequalities, but only those which disadvantage the worst off.”
IMPORTANCE OF THE THEORY BASED ON JUSTICE
IN MODERN SOCIETY
Addressing Domestic and Political Issues in Society
For Rawls in addressing this kind of issues the government
must always aim that the steps and measure they make must always
be for the equal opportunity for all and for socio-economically
benefiting “the least advantaged.” He also suggests that if the
severity of the injustice is not great, then respect for
democratic majority rule might morally dictate compliance.
However, if appeals to the political majority have been
reasonably tried and failed and their measures have caused
injustice to some, then Rawls believes that it is reasonable that
civil disobedience be used in addressing the domestic and
political issues since no society is perfectly just.25
A generally or “nearly just society” can have unjust laws,
in which case its citizens may or may not have a duty to comply
25 Ibid. pp. 350-351
19
with them, depending on how severely unjust they are. Otherwise,
citizens can feel a moral obligation to engage in civil
disobedience, which Rawls defines as “a public, nonviolent,
conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with
the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the
government.” Certain conditions must be met in order that an act
of civil disobedience be justified: (1) it should normally
address violations of equal civil liberties and/or of “fair
equality of opportunity”, with violations of the difference
principle being murkier and, thus, harder to justify; (2) the act
of civil disobedience should come only after appeals to the
political majority have been reasonably tried and failed; (3) it
must seem likely to accomplish more good than harm for the social
order. 26
Yet, even if all three of these conditions seem to be met
and the disobedient action seems right, there remains the
practical question of whether it would be “wise or prudent,”
under the circumstances, to engage in the act of civil
disobedience. Ultimately, every individual must decide for
himself or herself whether such action is morally and
prudentially justifiable or not as reasonably and responsibly as
possible. The acts of civil disobedience of Martin Luther King
(to whom Rawls refers in a footnote) seem to have met all the
26 Ibid. pp. 352- 367
20
conditions, to have been done in the name of justice, and to have
been morally justified.27
Pluralism of Ideas
A just society must protect basic liberties equally for all
of its members, including freedom of thought and its necessary
condition, freedom of expression. But, in a free society that
protects these basic liberties, a pluralism of views and values
is likely to develop, such that people can seriously disagree
about matters they hold dear. They will develop their own
comprehensive doctrines, or systems of beliefs that may govern
all significant aspects of their lives. These may be religious
or philosophical or moral. Yet a variety of potentially
conflicting comprehensive doctrines may be such that all are
reasonable. In such a case, social unity requires respect for
and tolerance of other sets of beliefs. It would be unjust
deliberately to suppress reasonable comprehensive doctrines
merely because they are different from our own.
The problem of political liberalism nowadays is how we can
establish “a stable and just society whose free and equal
citizens are deeply divided by conflicting and even
incommensurable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines.”
27 Ibid. pp. 372-376, 389-390
21
What is needed is a shared “political conception of justice” that
is neutral regarding competing comprehensive doctrines. This
could allow for “an overlapping consensus of reasonable
comprehensive doctrines,” such that tolerance and mutual respect
are operative even among those committed to incompatible views
and values, so long as they are reasonable. In short, the society
must develop a workable “overlapping consensus” despite the
challenges to social union posed by a pluralism of “reasonable
comprehensive doctrines.”28
The International Sphere
Given that not all societies act justly and that societies
have a right to defend themselves against aggressive violent
force, there can be a right to go to war (jus ad bellum). Yet
even then, not all is fair in war, and rules of just warfare (jus
in bello) should be observed: (1) the goal must be a “just and
lasting peace”; (2) it must be waged in defense of freedom and
security from aggression; (3) reasonable attempts must be made
not to attack innocent non-combatants; (4) the human rights of
enemies (for example, against being tortured) must be respected;
(5) attempts should be made to establish peaceful relations; and
(6) practical tactics must always remain within the parameters of
28 John Rawls, Political Liberalism pp. 291-292, 340-342, 145, xviii, 13, 152n., 59-60, 133, 154-155, 144, 134, Columbia University Press, 1993
22
moral principles. After hostilities have ceased, just conquerors
must treat their conquered former enemies with respect—not, for
example, enslaving them or denying them civil liberties. 29
Also by applying the theory based on justice’s egalitarian
principle of distributive justice. It will address socio-
economic equalities that are to the detriment of the world’s
worst-off persons. Thomas Pogge, a German Philosopher, proposes
“a global resources tax, or GRT.” This means that, although each
of the peoples of our planet “owns and fully controls all
resources within its national territory,” it will be taxed on all
of the resources it extracts. If it uses those extracted
resources itself, it must pay the tax itself. If it sells some
to other societies, presumably at least part of the tax burden
will be borne by buyers in the form of higher sales prices. “The
GRT is then a tax on consumption” of our planet’s resources.30
As a result, corporations extracting resources would pay
their taxes to their governments which, in turn, would be
responsible for transferring funds to disadvantaged societies to
help the global poor. Such payments should be regarded as “a
matter of entitlement rather than charity,” an obligation of
international justice. If the governments of the poorer states
were honest, they could disburse the funds; if they were corrupt,
29 John Rawls, Law on People pp, 94-96, 98-99, 37, 106, 114-117, Harvard University Press, 200130 Thomas Pogge, An Egalitarian Law on Peoples, pp. 195-196, Blackwell Publishing 1994
23
then transfers could go through United Nations agencies and/or
nongovernmental organizations. At any rate, they should be
channeled toward societies in which they could improve the lot of
the poor and disadvantaged. 31
But, one might wonder, would well-off societies only be
motivated to pay their fair share by benevolence, a sense of
justice, and possible shame at being exposed for not doing so?
No, there could be international sanctions: “Once the agency
facilitating the flow of GRT payments reports that a country has
not met its obligations under the scheme, all other countries are
required to impose duties on imports from, and perhaps also
similar levies on exports to, this country to raise funds
equivalent to its GRT obligations plus the cost of these
enforcement measures.” Pogge believes that well-off societies
should recognize that his more egalitarian model of international
relations is also more just than Rawls’s law of peoples.32
IT’S APPLICATION IN THE PHILIPPINES
Rawls considers his theory as "ideal", and is not
particularly worried by the unreality of his assumptions.
However, at some point he will want to justify the usefulness of
31 Ibid. pp 119-202,205, 32 Ibid. pp 219-204
24
ideal theory in generating conclusions which are applicable to
experience. Perhaps enough has been said about the unreality of
the assumptions built into the description of the original
position to raise doubts about the possible relevance to reality
of the outcome of the theory. Each assumption taken individually
is plausible. But cumulatively, the whole set of qualifications
generates a model which is so divorced from reality that it loses
all power to tell us anything about justice in the world of our
experience. A summary, based on the Philippine society, of those
assumptions would help:
1. The principles are to be chosen for a normal situation of
non-starvation, in which the contractors know that the
achievement of liberty is possible. But we ask what is
required in justice in a world and a country like the
Philippines where millions are actually starving, and
are actually locked in a poverty trap.
2. The principles are to be chosen for a "well-ordered
society." But the problem of justice in many places
today like the Philippines is how to establish order in
societies which are riven by conflicts.
3. The choosers are non-envious. But we are concerned about
justice in a world and in countries like the Philippines
25
in which people are very conscious of the differences in
wealth, advantage and power.
4. The choosers know general facts. But we seek justice in a
Third World country in which access to knowledge is not
universal, and in which the content of knowledge is
ideologically significant.
5. The choosers are ignorant of relevant details about
themselves. But that imagined degree of ignorance is
nonhuman. In addition, with the emergence of the social
media, Filipinos are becoming self-conscious on what is
popular or “trendy.”
6. The contractors do not know their life-plans, but they do
know how to realize them. In fact, the model reverses
our usual experience. Usually, people know what they
want, but don't know how to get it. In Rawls's theory,
the choosers don't know what they want, but they do know
how to get it.
Another problem of that theory, as Robert Paul Wolff
suggest, is that it treats the problem of justice as one of pure
distribution. How wealth has been produced is not considered
relevant to deciding how it is to be distributed. So there would
be no difference between distributing a cake which has appeared
from nowhere, and dividing up a cake which one of the group has
26
baked. This neglect blinds Rawls to the existence of powerful
groups, as for example those who control some means of production
and can hold out for a greater share in the distribution, or
those who control some aspect of distribution like social welfare
officials. The reality of power as we encounter it ought to make
its impact on a theory of justice. The neglect of this reality
undermines any relevance Rawls's theory might have for our
concern for justice. 33 Like in Philippines, whereby oligarchs
have full control of the economic and political sphere of the
whole nation, what is happening is the difference of the
difference principle. Rather than removing the disadvantage to
the “worst-off,” the scenario in our country is that these
oligarchs are the one who create such disadvantages. These
oligarchs would not want to be tax in order for the tax to be
given to the “worst-off.”
Another problem is that fairness is discussed generally
in terms of equality of opportunity, which suggests that a bigger
income is deserved as long as there has been fair competition.
But such notion of fair competition can put those who do not
possess high intelligence or skill at a disadvantage. The concept
of fair competition is deceptive because others have natural
talents they do not deserve to possess if we put premium in the
33 John Paul Wolff, Understanding John Rawls: A Reconstruction and Critique of “A Theory Based on Justice,” Princeton University Press, 1977
27
moral equality of persons. The central argument of Rawls then is
that all social arrangements, to be fair, should ultimately favor
the worst off, whose disadvantage, say in their social position
or natural talent is something they don’t deserve.
It can also be argued that the distribution of resources in
terms of income only touches the superficial symptoms of poverty
but does not address the differences and heterogeneities between
two people. For instance, person A and B can have the same amount
of income. But if person A is a person with a physical handicap,
there is no real equality though they have the same amount of
income. The difference principle is good, but not good enough.
[13] The income approach only addresses the poverty of income but
not the poverty of human life. Unjust social arrangements
diminish the capabilities of people, and as such, re-arranging
the mode of social cooperation therefore entails looking at
holistic approaches to development. For instance, if we consider
those with natural disabilities, it is not income that they need
but a sense of human well-being beyond what economic provisions
provide.
Another problem with this theory is that John Rawls, unlike
other egalitarian advocate, failed to suggest measures to
initiate such ideal state. In order for our country to become
egalitarian, an action less than a revolution would not suffice.
28
In general, rather than creating an idealistic world, the
Philippines, in general would be solving its problem by accepting
realities and by overcoming real problems that hinder our
economic, social and political development.
29
Chapter 3
CONCLUSION
Following a brief presentation of the essentials of Rawls's
theory of justice the researcher concluded that:
In general, the Theory Based on Justice is an outstanding
political theory. However, such theory is hard to materialize and
apply in a today’s society.
However, the problems lie with its application since we all
know that the oligarchs controlling the global economy would not
want a redistributive taxation to the poor, and they would
commonly object that such taxation involves the immoral taking of
their just holdings.
With regard to its application on human rights, it is an
outstanding theory since its main discussion is the protection of
the basic rights and given the people equal opportunity to all.
His take on individual human rights is worth appraising.
He develop such measures to ensure that the political
majority would not try to create measures that would endanger the
“worst off”. He believe that civil disobedience is a tool of a
just society in order to combat such measures.
30
The theory, however, has little to teach us about justice
which might help us to cope with the pressing problems of justice
in the Philippines. What the Philippines need is not to create an
ideal form of State in order for it to solve problems but to
accept the real problems that hinder our daily life and solve
each problem one at a time.
31
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Nelson, Bryan. Western Political Thought: From Socrates to the
Age of Ideology. Waveland Press. 1996
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971
Rawls, John. Law on People. Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2001
Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press,
1993
Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. McGraw-Hill
Higher Education.1979
Shaw, Malcom C. International Law, 5th ed. Cambridge University
Press, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, 2003
JOURNALS
Pogge, Thomas. An Egalitarian Law on Peoples, Blackwell
Publishing. 1994
32
Wolff, John Paul. Understanding John Rawls: A Reconstruction and
Critique of “A Theory Based on Justice.” Princeton
University Press. 1977
DICTIONARY
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth
Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged ©
HarperCollins Publishers, 2003
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K
Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, by Random House, Inc
INTERNET SOURCES
http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/
magna-carta.html
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/WhoWeAre.aspx
Income Inequality Definition | Investopedia
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/income-
inequality.asp#ixzz3pUH1ngxE
33