Thesis Chapters by Mojalefa Koloko
BA degree in Applied Ethics and Philosophy , 2012
ABSTRACT:
This research has attempted to convey that the difference principle proposed by John Ra... more ABSTRACT:
This research has attempted to convey that the difference principle proposed by John Rawls as a measure to alleviate social and economic inequalities was regretfully bound to fail given its lexical priority of improving the least off while actually advancing for a reverse mandate of justifying further enrichment of the well off. In this way, an attempt to resolve social and economic inequalities by the difference principle has been proved to be a futile one precisely because it has masked behind egalitarianism to perpetuate further inequalities. This research has capitalized on qualitative and analytical methodology in an attempt to reject the difference principle by subjecting it to a rigorous critical analysis in order to discover its strengths and weaknesses.
Moreover, the difference principle has been shown to be irreconcilable with the ethics of Immanuel Kant as it tends to project the least off as a means towards the ends of the well off and objects of ridicule at their disposal. Apart from chance contingencies such as “accident” and “brute luck” owing to fatal determinism as outlined by Rawls, the findings of this research have identified greed and vanity, the benchmarks of moral decay, as also blame-worthy of social and economic inequalities.
This research vehemently argues for a paradigm shift from an ideology of vast capitalism, the fabrics of which Rawls has worked his difference principle within, to that of moderate socialism. It emphasizes more on ethical persuasive campaigns as a melting pot to moral decay. It also pin-points positive preferential treatment in favour of the least off as suggestive of a convenient measure which can be deployed in order to bridge the gap between the well off and the least off. In this way, it will be possible to alleviate the considerable difference between the well off and the least off on the sliding scale of social and economic inequalities.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Papers by Mojalefa Koloko
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Thesis Chapters by Mojalefa Koloko
This research has attempted to convey that the difference principle proposed by John Rawls as a measure to alleviate social and economic inequalities was regretfully bound to fail given its lexical priority of improving the least off while actually advancing for a reverse mandate of justifying further enrichment of the well off. In this way, an attempt to resolve social and economic inequalities by the difference principle has been proved to be a futile one precisely because it has masked behind egalitarianism to perpetuate further inequalities. This research has capitalized on qualitative and analytical methodology in an attempt to reject the difference principle by subjecting it to a rigorous critical analysis in order to discover its strengths and weaknesses.
Moreover, the difference principle has been shown to be irreconcilable with the ethics of Immanuel Kant as it tends to project the least off as a means towards the ends of the well off and objects of ridicule at their disposal. Apart from chance contingencies such as “accident” and “brute luck” owing to fatal determinism as outlined by Rawls, the findings of this research have identified greed and vanity, the benchmarks of moral decay, as also blame-worthy of social and economic inequalities.
This research vehemently argues for a paradigm shift from an ideology of vast capitalism, the fabrics of which Rawls has worked his difference principle within, to that of moderate socialism. It emphasizes more on ethical persuasive campaigns as a melting pot to moral decay. It also pin-points positive preferential treatment in favour of the least off as suggestive of a convenient measure which can be deployed in order to bridge the gap between the well off and the least off. In this way, it will be possible to alleviate the considerable difference between the well off and the least off on the sliding scale of social and economic inequalities.
Papers by Mojalefa Koloko
This research has attempted to convey that the difference principle proposed by John Rawls as a measure to alleviate social and economic inequalities was regretfully bound to fail given its lexical priority of improving the least off while actually advancing for a reverse mandate of justifying further enrichment of the well off. In this way, an attempt to resolve social and economic inequalities by the difference principle has been proved to be a futile one precisely because it has masked behind egalitarianism to perpetuate further inequalities. This research has capitalized on qualitative and analytical methodology in an attempt to reject the difference principle by subjecting it to a rigorous critical analysis in order to discover its strengths and weaknesses.
Moreover, the difference principle has been shown to be irreconcilable with the ethics of Immanuel Kant as it tends to project the least off as a means towards the ends of the well off and objects of ridicule at their disposal. Apart from chance contingencies such as “accident” and “brute luck” owing to fatal determinism as outlined by Rawls, the findings of this research have identified greed and vanity, the benchmarks of moral decay, as also blame-worthy of social and economic inequalities.
This research vehemently argues for a paradigm shift from an ideology of vast capitalism, the fabrics of which Rawls has worked his difference principle within, to that of moderate socialism. It emphasizes more on ethical persuasive campaigns as a melting pot to moral decay. It also pin-points positive preferential treatment in favour of the least off as suggestive of a convenient measure which can be deployed in order to bridge the gap between the well off and the least off. In this way, it will be possible to alleviate the considerable difference between the well off and the least off on the sliding scale of social and economic inequalities.