Conclusion: Understanding Taylor’s Idea

Conclusion: Understanding Taylor’s Idea

Conclusion: Understanding Taylor’s Idea

Conclusion: Understanding Taylor’s Idea

To conclude the discussion about Taylor’s idea on distributive justice, we could identify the comparison of distributive justice according to John Rawls and Charles Taylor, as noted in the table below

Concepts

John Rawls

Charles Taylor

Assumption of man Atomic individualism Holistic individualism
The meaning of Distributive Justice It is distributive in nature because people become a member of society as an atomic individualism who surrender some parts of his sovereignty to preserve his rights It is distributive in nature because society that define what is justice for their own community. It is society that decides what are the aims of their community so justice means distributively shared among the members.
Nature of distributive justice How to create justice for every single person who is the member of community How to create justice for all members of the community
Scope of distributive justice Individual Community
Principles of distributive justice Liberation and fairness Equal fulfillment and distribution
Original position State of nature in which people are covered by veil of ignorance Every individual is a part of at least one community
The meaning of community Instrumental Locus in which people develop their potentials
The nature of good Tend to be materialistic in nature Its nature tends to be values that are the common aims of community
The sovereignty of good Within oneself, therefore logically one has to preserve his goods One get it from sources outside of oneself, like community, therefore logically one should always be connected with the sources

By seeing the comparison captured in the table above, it is clear that although Taylor criticizes Rawls’ theory of justice, he does not try to take an opposite position from Rawls. He just tries to clarify and put Rawls’ idea back to what Taylor thinks it should be. As Choi explains, fundamentally Taylor wants to show that 1) politics that recognizes differences is truer to the ideals of freedom, equality and individuality 2) why the liberal pillar of defending human dignity requires that we move beyond a difference-blind politics that can never achieve this for everyone. In this regard, Taylor rejects the notion of abstraction in viewing man and society that sometimes used in the name of democracy and frequently applied in the modern thinking. Therefore the key question for liberalism, as Taylor conceives is “how can people live together in difference in a democratic regime under condition of fairness and equality”?

Baca Juga L: 

You may also like...