Moved from D1 forum

[--Pete]

Hi,

I started to actually grade this pile of tripe, but I just couldn't force myself to go on. I made it about one page, then decided to do something more useful and fun -- perhaps clean out the litter box. This is what I did before becoming terminally bored:

John Rawls' (1921-2002) 1958 article, Justice As Fairness, underscores the traditional and enduring struggle seen in any political system and society: the reconciliation of freedom versus equality.

There should be quote marks around the title of the article.

The paper "underscores" a "struggle" which is a "reconciliation" of one thing "versus" another?

"Underscores" means to emphasize. While I haven't read that paper, I suspect it "discusses", "proposes", or "analyzes" the topic.

A "struggle" cannot be a "reconciliation", although a reconciliation can be part of a struggle. A "reconciliation" cannot be "versus" two quantities. You can have a reconciliation of freedom and equality (the two were in conflict, but are being brought together). You can have a conflict of freedom versus equality -- although "conflict between freedom and equality" would be less pretentious.

Poor word usage, gobbledygook construction.

It is this idea which I will examine.

Which idea? You haven't mentioned any idea, thesis, concept, proposal, or anything of the sort.

Following this,

Again, what is the antecedent of “this”? A (weak) argument could be made, I suppose, that this “this” refers to your examination of the yet undefined idea.

I will apply his theories and their relevance to modern American society on three separate but related realms: politics, economics, and social/cultural structures, that ostensibly influence our culture and how we view society.

Run on sentence and comma splice after “structures”.

I might be able to understand what “apply his theories” means, but I’m totally at loss for what “apply ... their relevance” can possibly mean. At the very least, it is redundant (if you apply the theories, don’t you automatically apply the relevance?).

Unless you plan to argue that the “realms” do not in fact influence our culture (and thus justify the "ostensibly”) the last ten words of that sentence are just padding.

Some key institutionalized issues we currently face in each of these areas serving as justification will be provided.

What will be provided? The “key institutionalized issues”? The “justifications” (and justification of what?) This sentence not only says nothing, it says it badly.

According to Rawls, it is important we first establish that justice and fairness are not the same thing (McQuitty 194).

Again, this is an awkward construction. Change it to “important that we” or “important to establish”.

Justice is a comprehensive system of socially constructed virtues and practices we have to keep civil society intact, while fairness refers to a context of equity which may or may not be just.

A number of problems here.

First, something is needed between “we have” and “to keep”. Perhaps “developed” or “accepted” or “evolved”. Alternatively, replace "we have to" with "which" if that was your intended meaning.

Second, neither the definition of “justice” nor of “fairness” actually does any defining. Neither tells us what class the entities belong to nor how they differ from other members of that class (basic definition of a definition).

There is a profound relationship between justice and fairness for Rawls, however: fairness is one of the intrinsic elements found within justice itself.

Good for Rawls. That part of the sentence tells the reader nothing.

Run on sentence and comma splice after “Rawls”.

Colon after “however” where there should be a comma.

Why “however”? In this concept it would seem to imply that the following statement is in some form of conflict with the preceding statement. The two statements, as written, have nearly nothing in common.

Rawl's theory is composed of the following two tenets: 1. Each person participating in a practice, or affected by it, has an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all. 2. Inequalities are only permissible if they benefit all of society and that those with the greatest disadvantage will still benefit; offices and open positions must be open to all under fair and equal opportunity (DeLue 250).

What is a "practice" in this context? How did we get into “offices and open positions”? Do you mean political offices? Are these the “idea” which you are going to examine?

At this point, I gave up trying to do a point by point analysis. I can only say that, had I turned in this paper as a junior in high school, dear little (but wide) Sister Tomas Margret would have put her size sixes where the sun doesn't shine. She would not have given me a bad grade -- she would have refused to grade it at all and demanded a rewrite.

This type of writing might, possibly, just barely pass muster for an in class assignment, where there isn't much time to organize the material and then revise for clarity. As a project? There is no logical flow. There is no obvious thesis. A large number of big words are being bandied about -- most of them incorrectly ("I do not think it means what you think it means"). Statements are being made, but neither derived nor supported.

Neither the mechanics of good writing nor the techniques of good writing are demonstrated in this paper. If this paper did indeed get an A, then either the bar for style and content was very low, or the A was a reward for faithfully regurgitating the professor's prejudices.

--Pete

EDIT Three additional things, all from pasting the paper into Word.

First, a ten page document with only 16 paragraphs? More than 10 sentences in a paragraph and more than 26 words in a sentence? Right there we have strong indications of poor writing -- either intentional or accidental obfuscation.

Second, a quick grammar check by Word gave 78 errors (I think -- I might have lost count). Now, Word is not a great proofreader, but there is usually something wrong when it flags a mistake -- perhaps not what it flagged, but something. Also, Word uses only the most primitive word usage rules.

Third, Word has a nice summary function. Using it yields this somewhat clearer version in which the logical fallacies stand out even better:

John Rawls' (1921-2002) 1958 article, Justice As Fairness, underscores the traditional and enduring struggle seen in any political system and society: the reconciliation of freedom versus equality. Justice is a comprehensive system of socially constructed virtues and practices we have to keep civil society intact, while fairness refers to a context of equity which may or may not be just. In short, all people must be granted justice which protects basic civil liberties, such as freedom of speech. This inequality benefits the weaker player to create a more fair playing field, just as the second tenet in Rawls' theory applies to social and economic inequalities in society. To answer this question, we must first examine another important idea that Rawls had in his theory of justice, “the Veil of Ignorance.”

“The Veil of Ignorance” introduces the idea of a hypothetical society where people lack a knowledge of self: we do not know our individual talents, the social class we were born into, how much wealth or resources we have access to, or other extrinsic variables. We do however, still have knowledge about our society, its values, culture, laws, and so forth. Putting Rawls' idea into practice is difficult, because we know which principles of justice will benefit us and which ones will not. And with people naturally pursuing their own interests first, this further compounds the issue of theory versus practicality. Rawls' theory is applicable in virtually any modern society today, but perhaps no other nation underscores the idea of justice as fairness, or freedom versus equality, better than the United States. The paradigm of American politics, compounded by the many different cultural values, social classes and ethnic groups, creates a vast and complicated structure within our society regarding various issues and propositions. By applying Rawls' idea of justice as fairness to some of these affairs, we can obtain a better understanding of their fundamental and dynamically historical - yet perpetuating context; on a political, economical, and social level. I will begin in the political realm, by examining some of the common but critical issues and questions that we face today, in the American political system.

Should Americans be allowed a system of direct democracy rather than representative democracy? Many Americans, with some justice, have come to believe the two party system is no longer working for them and want reform. Would Americans be better served under a parliamentary system, where proportional representation that allows more parties to be involved in legislation (as opposed to single member districts, seen in our current system), than under our more stable but less efficient presidential system? Most Americans are not yet willing to embrace or even consider such a dramatic change, even if they feel the two party system is no longer fair and just. Our political system, values, culture, and way of life are so entrenched in traditional legitimacy, it is difficult for changes (especially substantial ones) to take place, even if we want or need them to. The two party paradigm could also be a probable culprit of lower voter turnout in American elections.

Did Rawls condone the ability of politicians to be “bought?” Furthermore, it creates a fallacy that we have a transparent political system that is fair and just, that all eligible citizens have a reasonable amount of autonomy in politics, and that we have a legitimate choice in spite of both parties being “funded” by wealthy capitalists and special interest groups to see their interests mutually obtained at the expense of common citizens. Even looking past this, the fairness and justice of the American political system is, at best, questionable, with its ambiguous future. I will now examine Rawls' idea in an economical context, with a critique of American capitalism.

The top 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million citizens combined. Applying Rawls' theory to capitalism, we can discover several elements that are intrinsic to just how unjust and unfair of a system it is. Can a system that seeks to create competition but defeats its very purpose by eliminating competition be considered fair and just? Capitalism is a system based on the ideology of Social Darwinism, where only the strongest survive. It is a morally bankrupt system that puts profits, consumerism, and materialism above social needs, merit and integrity.

There is nothing fair or just about such a system, in the context of Rawls' theory or otherwise.

The United States may boast being the wealthiest nation in the world with the largest economy, but it also has the largest economic inequality and disparity in social class compared to any other democracy (O'Neil 76). In short, capitalism manifests its own demise through a multitude of paradoxical elements, as Marx observed. In the context of Rawls' theory, such a system that benefits only a certain group of citizens cannot be considered fair and just except for those who benefit from it, because of the inequality of resources and wealth among the various social classes. Finally, I would like to examine a few paradoxical social/cultural values and ideas in American society, and their interrelationship with the American political and economic system.

Perhaps the most important cultural paradox of our society is The American Dream itself, based on the Horatio Alger Myth. It implies that everyone can achieve success through hard work and perseverance (Charon 28). Of course, there are also race, gender, and class elements in the structures of society that shape our values and perceptions toward certain types of people as well, that hold precedence over individual character and merit. This problem is a result of laissez-faire racism (as opposed to traditional Jim Crowe racism), a contour of our society today.

I have detailed how our political and economic systems have shaped our cultural values within American society. Given the above circumstances, is our society fair and just in the context of Rawls' philosophy? The veil theory will allow us to take the first critical step into achieving a fair and just society, in our political, economic, and cultural realms for everyone, as Rawls' theory envisions.