Justice @ Rhodes

The unifying factor for Rawls, Nozick, and Marx is that all three define a just society in terms of the distribution of property. Although property is critical to defining one’s existence that does not mean that one’s existence is necessarily defined by property. Many modern nations are facing a crisis not of property, but of happiness, which is not an expendable resource. Past a minimum standard of living, happiness is not correlated to property- some of the happiest people in the world are with very little property. Happiness can hypothetically be attained universally, without taking from any other individual’s happiness. So when examining society, should we focus on the just course of action, or the course of action that will promote the greatest happiness, understanding that a system that promotes individual wellbeing will inherently be just? In today’s symposium, I represented Rawls, and I couldn’t help but recognize the original position as an excellent basis to examine a system.  From the original position, however, what if we as a society asked what system would provide the highest probability of every individual maximizing his or her individual satisfaction?  Wouldn’t a logical individual, unaware of his or her position, want to put themselves in a position to maximize their existence in terms of happiness? The obvious problem to establishing such a society is the question of defining happiness. Historically, we have allowed individuals to pursue their own happiness, asserting that individuals may have different needs of desires. While this seems logical, it also allows for individuals the freedom to pursue actions that are in direct conflict with their own, and others, continued existence. If we as a society focused less on establishing a “safe” environment for individuals to pursue their own desires, and were more concerned with teaching individuals how to find happiness, society would inevitably become just- happy content people don’t need governance to ensure that other rights are respected. Thus, from the original position, the most effective form of government would be the form of government that most effectively guides each and every individual to achieving their maximal happiness, while still providing the bare minimums in subsistence existence.  While Marx most closely theorizes on a the existence of such a state, it would also be a reasonable tenant of such a society that the government would be minimalist in nature, and would avoid redistribution of resources, as property, with the exception of the necessities for existence, are not a direct correlation to happiness. Those who committed unjust actions would clearly be unhappy people, and would merely need more instruction on the most effective way to reach a state of happiness and contentment.