Social Justice - Revision history

Tom: /* Justice as Fairness */

2025-07-06T23:21:13Z

‎Justice as Fairness

Tom: /* Justice as Fairness */

2025-07-06T23:20:03Z

‎Justice as Fairness

Tom: /* Bounded Rationality */

2025-07-06T05:24:00Z

‎Bounded Rationality

Tom: /* Where It Breaks Down in the 21st Century */

2025-07-06T05:19:56Z

‎Where It Breaks Down in the 21st Century

Tom: /* Justice as Fairness */

2025-07-05T01:43:55Z

‎Justice as Fairness

Tom: /* Where It Breaks Down in the 21st Century */

2025-07-05T01:17:42Z

‎Where It Breaks Down in the 21st Century

Tom: /* Rational Choice */

2025-07-05T01:13:21Z

‎Rational Choice

Tom: /* Context */

2025-07-05T01:03:32Z

‎Context

Tom: /* Justice as Fairness */

2025-07-05T00:36:23Z

‎Justice as Fairness

Tom: /* Context */

2025-07-05T00:30:21Z

‎Context

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 The two principles of "Justice as Fairness"
 # “Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for others.”
-# “Inequalities are permissible only if they improve the situation of those who are worst off.” This second principle has two parts:
+# “Inequalities are permissible only if they improve the situation of those who are worst off.” The two parts:
 ## Fair Equality of Opportunity: Positions and offices must be open to all under conditions of genuine equality, not just formal equality. This means addressing structural barriers like class, race, or gender.
 ## The Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities are only just if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. This is not trickle-down economics—it’s a maximin strategy: maximize the minimum position.

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 ===Justice as Fairness===
 "Justice as Fairness" is a restatement of his theory of justice as fairness, revised in light of his more recent papers and his treatise Political Liberalism (1993). As Rawls writes in the preface, the restatement presents "in one place an account of justice as fairness as I now see it, drawing on all [my previous] works." He offers a broad overview of his main lines of thought and also explores specific issues never before addressed in any of his writings. This book still relies on the idea that the citizen can be modeled as making rational choices. As the section following describes, this is not a realistic model of a voter, even in a "free" democracy.
 Rawls is well aware that since the publication of A Theory of Justice in 1971, American society has moved farther away from the idea of justice as fairness. Yet his ideas retain their power and relevance to debates in a pluralistic society about the meaning and theoretical viability of liberalism.<ref>John Rawls, ''Justice as Fairness'' &sect;26 2001 ISBN 9780674005112</ref>

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 ## Others argue that rational choice theory mathematizes the obvious and fails to predict meaningful outcomes.
 ===Bounded Rationality===
-Herbert A. Simon went on to argue that profit maximization cannot be accomplished, in part, because of the lack of complete information. In decision-making, he believed that agents face uncertainty about the future and costs in acquiring information in the present. These factors limit the extent to which agents may make a fully rational decision, thus they possess only "bounded rationality" and must make decisions by "satisficing", or choosing that which might not be optimal, but which will make them happy enough. Bounded rationality is a central theme in behavioral economics. It is concerned with the ways in which the process of decision-making influences the decision itself. The term is used to designate rational choices that take into account the cognitive limitations of both knowledge and cognitive capacity.<ref>Herbert A. Simon,  ''Bounded Rationality'' In Eatwell, John; Milgate, Murray; Newman, Peter (eds.). Utility and Probability. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 15–18. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-20568-4_5. ISBN 978-0-333-49541-4.</ref>
+Herbert A. Simon went on to argue that profit maximization cannot be accomplished, in part, because of the lack of complete information. In decision-making, he believed that agents face uncertainty about the future and costs in acquiring information in the present. These factors limit the extent to which agents may make a fully rational decision, thus they possess only "bounded rationality" and must make decisions by "satisficing", or choosing that which might not be optimal, but which will make them happy enough. Bounded rationality is a central theme in behavioral economics. It is concerned with the ways in which the process of decision-making influences the decision itself. The term is used to designate rational choices that take into account the cognitive limitations of both knowledge and cognitive capacity.<ref>Herbert A. Simon,  ''Bounded Rationality'' In Eatwell, John; Milgate, Murray; Newman, Peter (eds.). Utility and Probability. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. (1990) pp. 15–18. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-20568-4_5. ISBN 978-0-333-49541-4.</ref>
 ==References==
 [[Category: Philosophy]]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 ## Scholars like Herbert Simon and Charles Lindblom introduced concepts like bounded rationality and incrementalism, arguing that real-world decision-making is constrained, heuristic, and often non-optimal.
 ## Others argue that rational choice theory mathematizes the obvious and fails to predict meaningful outcomes.
 ==References==
 [[Category: Philosophy]]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 Rawls posits that under a Veil of Ignorance the rational choice would be his principle versus a [[Utility Function]] of any other principle. Any economic policy must be made without any consideration of the risks or advantages that will be faced by any group that are effected by the policy as though every one impacted by the policy is ignorant of what their own situation will be when the policy goes into effect.
 ===Justice as Fairness===
-"Justice as Fairness" is a restatement of his theory of justice as fairness, revised in light of his more recent papers and his treatise Political Liberalism (1993). As Rawls writes in the preface, the restatement presents "in one place an account of justice as fairness as I now see it, drawing on all [my previous] works." He offers a broad overview of his main lines of thought and also explores specific issues never before addressed in any of his writings.
+"Justice as Fairness" is a restatement of his theory of justice as fairness, revised in light of his more recent papers and his treatise Political Liberalism (1993). As Rawls writes in the preface, the restatement presents "in one place an account of justice as fairness as I now see it, drawing on all [my previous] works." He offers a broad overview of his main lines of thought and also explores specific issues never before addressed in any of his writings. This book still relies on the idea that the citizen can be modeled as making rational choices. As the section following describes, this is not a realistic model of a voter, even in a "free" democracy.
 Rawls is well aware that since the publication of A Theory of Justice in 1971, American society has moved farther away from the idea of justice as fairness. Yet his ideas retain their power and relevance to debates in a pluralistic society about the meaning and theoretical viability of liberalism.<ref>John Rawls, ''Justice as Fairness'' &sect;26 2001 ISBN 9780674005112</ref>

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 # Empirical Failures
 ## Low voter turnout contradicts rational choice predictions: if voting is costly and the impact of one vote is negligible, rational actors shouldn’t vote—yet many do.
-## LEmotional, identity-based, and tribal voting often overrides policy preferences or self-interest.
+## Emotional, identity-based, and tribal voting often overrides policy preferences or self-interest.
-## LDisinformation and cognitive biases distort the information environment, undermining the assumption of informed rationality.
+## Disinformation and cognitive biases distort the information environment, undermining the assumption of informed rationality.
 # Cultural and Institutional Blind Spots
-Rational choice theory often ignores history, culture, and emotion, which are central to real-world political behavior.
+## Rational choice theory often ignores history, culture, and emotion, which are central to real-world political behavior.
-## LIt struggles to explain populist movements, authoritarian backsliding, and irrational policy preferences that have emerged in democracies worldwide.
+## It struggles to explain populist movements, authoritarian backsliding, and irrational policy preferences that have emerged in democracies worldwide.
 # Critiques from Within the Field
-Scholars like Herbert Simon and Charles Lindblom introduced concepts like bounded rationality and incrementalism, arguing that real-world decision-making is constrained, heuristic, and often non-optimal.
+## Scholars like Herbert Simon and Charles Lindblom introduced concepts like bounded rationality and incrementalism, arguing that real-world decision-making is constrained, heuristic, and often non-optimal.
-## LOthers argue that rational choice theory mathematizes the obvious and fails to predict meaningful outcomes.
+## Others argue that rational choice theory mathematizes the obvious and fails to predict meaningful outcomes.
 ==References==
 [[Category: Philosophy]]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 ===Rational Choice===
-It should be clear in light of elections held in the 21st century that rational choice is not producing the desired result.
+It should be clear in light of elections held in the 21st century that rational choice is not producing the desired result.<ref>Mark P. Petracca, ''The Rational Choice Approach to Politics: A Challenge to Democratic Theory'' https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-politics/article/abs/rational-choice-approach-to-politics-a-challenge-to-democratic-theory/C3B9AB9F66FA4D36912F07D408DEA198</ref>
 ==References==
 [[Category: Philosophy]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==Context==
 * One primary context for this paper is John Rawls' Theory of Social Justice.<ref>H. G. Blocker, E. H. Smith (eds) ''John Rawls' Theory of Social Justice'' 1980 Ohio UP ISBN 0821404458</ref> where justice is comprised two main principles of liberty and equality; the second is subdivided into fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle. A fair ecosystem not only creates rights, but also obligations on each [[Entity]] in the [[Ecosystem]].
-* "It will be recalled that the general conception of justice as fairness required that all primary social good be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution would be to everyone's advantage. ... Inequalities are permissible when they maximize, or at least contribute to, the long term expectations of the least fortunate group of society."<ref>John Rawls, ''A Theory of Justice'' 1999 ISBN 978-0674000780</ref>
+* "It will be recalled that the general conception of justice as fairness required that all primary social good be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution would be to everyone's advantage. ... Inequalities are permissible when they maximize, or at least contribute to, the long term expectations of the least fortunate group of society."<ref>John Rawls, ''A Theory of Justice'' 1971 ISBN 978-0674000780</ref>
 ==Problems==