I think a society based on Rawls would be more just than one based on Young's theory, especially since I don't like anything Young has presented. I will first examine the arguments presented by Rawls, then by Young, about what makes a just society. The second will be the reason why I chose Rawls over Young, why I became skeptical of Young and why I think his ideas create patterned oppression, why I think a universalistic approach to this topic is better than a relativistic approach, and because politicizing everything would lead to a society that would never be able to achieve anything. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay. Rawls bases his theory on a hypothetical scenario. In this he says that if everyone were put in the original position behind a veil of ignorance they would agree with the principles of justice he himself developed. Rawls says that behind the veil everyone is rational, which means selfish. They would like to get the most for their money, if you will. He proposes two principles: “First: every person must have an equal right to the most extensive fundamental freedom compatible with similar freedom for others. Second: social and economic inequalities must be organized so that they are (a) reasonably predictable to the benefit of all, and (b) linked to positions and tasks open to all." (Rawls, 60) His vision is universal; no deviation or change is necessary. Young's basis is oppression, as oppression is the greatest injustice and we must mitigate it. It identifies five forms of oppression: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence. Exploitation means investing more in a task than you get out of doing the task. On marginalization: “The marginal are people that the employment system cannot or does not want to use”. (Young, 54) Young says that powerlessness is a lack of voice, whether in work or government; when you have no say you are helpless. Cultural imperialism is the destruction of its own cultural traditions by the majority. Groups that suffer from oppression in the form of violence, “… live with the knowledge that they must fear random and unprovoked attacks against their persons or property, which have no purpose other than to harm, humiliate or destroy the person.” (Young, 61) It also focuses on groups rather than the individual, that it is not possible to have a just society without the recognition of different social groups and the politicization of everything. I chose Rawls partly because I find Young's theory too sensitive. I feel like in a society created by Young I would make some spontaneous comment and someone would start yelling that I'm oppressing them. The modern idea of ​​social justice, as far as I can tell, has morphed into people getting angry over trivial things, like the fact that their professor doesn't ask what pronouns they want to be called. The other reason, more rooted in philosophy, is that I find that Rawls manages to answer the same problems in a much simpler way, and Occam's razor says that the simplest solution is usually correct. I also find that the ethical approach is more to my liking. The first problem I had with Young came when he used the Jews in Egypt as an example of oppression. You claim to base your theory on history, but you don't bother to verify the historicity of this statement. There is no historical evidence to show that the Jews were oppressed by the Egyptians, nor evidence to place the group in Egypt at the times the Bible states they were there. Not only that, theEgyptians treated their workers decently. After reading this I became skeptical of everything else he wrote. If she's too lazy to verify a claim, why should I trust anything else she writes? Young's system creates a circular pattern of oppression; the oppressed gain rights and then oppress their oppressors. This is not a difficult thing to see in our society. In the following example it is not necessarily the formerly oppressed who are doing the oppression, rather it is society as a whole that is oppressing the oppressors, without any basis for the oppression. Anecdotal evidence from my life is a great example. When it came time to go to college, someone in my socioeconomic system would look for scholarships or grants. An upper-middle-class white male with slightly above-average grades in high school would have difficulty finding funding for school other than his own income. Ultimately, as has happened to me and some friends, they rely on their parents to pay for their education, which may or may not be entirely feasible. A woman in the same socioeconomic situation would still struggle, as was the case with my sister. A minority would have a relatively easy time, especially if they have good grades or play sports. If my family were middle class the situation for me would change for the worse, for a woman it would become easier, and for a minority there would be no problems. The lower the socioeconomic class of any group other than white males, the easier it becomes to receive money for college, making my demographic marginalized and therefore oppressed. A more concrete example of the oppressed becoming oppressors is the current form of feminist movement. The Onion recently published a satirical article about the movement, and satire is a great way to convey absurdity. "I understand why some people might believe that the only way to advance women's rights is to slaughter every man on the planet, but that kind of radical, explicitly murderous position, which as far as I know is a fundamental aspect of feminism, is exactly what which makes me hesitant to call myself a feminist. (Onion) This reactionary form of feminism perpetuates oppression, and the article is not that far from the truth, in my opinion, it answers the issue of oppression better 2(b), that everyone must have the opportunity to obtain any position. It is not based on gender, social group, race, etc., it is based on merit When it comes to justice for society, a universal is needed , rather than a relative. Society changes, yes, but what is simply no. By saying that everything must benefit the least advantaged, Rawls covers all the forms of oppression exposed by Young say that certain actions were unjust; whereas a relativist approach would try to justify something by claiming that it was the norm in that period. The example that immediately comes to mind involves Joseph Smith marrying a girl of only fourteen. When this topic is brought up among church members, they try to justify it by saying that it wasn't that rare in that time period (it was rare). Social norms change, but what is simply doesn't change. Young wants democracy everywhere. I disagree with this. We can look at our current congress and see the amazing work they have done, and that is a representative body. In a government, if every decision had to be voted on, nothing would be accomplished, otherwise it would lead to the tyranny of the majority. This is if everyone voted, as we currently struggle to exceed a voter turnout rate above 50% during midterm elections. A.