1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

From the past struggles of human beings against abuse and

discrimination, human rights as a concept was advocated. The

belief that everyone, by virtue of her or his humanity, is

entitled to certain human rights is fairly new.1 Its roots,

however, lie in earlier tradition and documents of many cultures;

it took the catalyst of World War II to propel human rights onto

the global stage and into the global conscience.2

Throughout much of history, people acquired rights and

responsibilities through their membership in a group – a family,

indigenous nation, religion, class, community, or state. In fact,

all societies, whether in oral or written tradition, have had

systems of propriety and justice as well as ways of tending to

the health and welfare of their members.3 However, the concept of

the human rights had only been discussed after it emerged as a

response to the felt need to curtail abuses against man.

Today, human rights philosophy is advocated throughout the

world. In fact, there is the Office of the United Nations High

1 Samuel Moyn, The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. Harvard University Press, 20102 http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/magna-carta.html3 Op. Cit. Samuel Mown

2

Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) which represents the

world's commitment to universal ideals of human dignity.4 It has

a unique mandate from the international community to promote and

protect all human rights.

The philosophy of human rights attempts to examine the

underlying basis of the concept of human rights and critically

looks at its content and justification. Several theoretical

approaches have been advanced to explain how and why the concept

of human rights developed. One of which is the Theory based on

justice, the subject matter of this research paper.

The researcher is tasked in this study to discuss the Theory

of based on justice and its relation to human rights. The

succeeding pages of this paper will discuss in detail the

connotations of the concept of “human rights” and how it is

related to Theory Based on justice.

4 United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/WhoWeAre.aspx

3

Statement of the Problem

This study specifically aims to discuss the Theory based on

justice’s approach to human rights philosophy.

Specifically, this seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is Human Rights?

2. What is Theory Based on Justice?

3. Why is the Theory Based on Justice regarded as one of

the fundamental theories and sources of Human Rights?

4. What is the importance of the Theory Based on Justice

in modern society?

5. How can the Theory Based on Justice be applied in the

Philippines?

4

Objectives of the Study

This study aims to discuss the Theory based on justice’s

approach to human rights philosophy.

Specifically, this aims to attain the following objectives:

1. To determine the meaning of human rights.

2. To know the meaning of theory based on justice.

3. To determine the reason why the Theory Based on

Justice is regarded as one of the fundamental

theories and sources of Human Rights.

4. To understand the importance of the Theory of Based

on Justice in modern society.

5. To determine the application of the Theory based on

justice in the Philippines

5

Significance of the Study

This study will be significant to the following:

ACADEME. This will significantly contribute to this sector

since findings of this study can be used as a ready reference on

topics dealing on human rights and its violations. This will also

inform the readers on the possible relationships that exists

between human rights and Theory based on Justice;

READERS/RESEARCHERS. Findings of this study will be

beneficial to this sector as this can be used as bases of their

researches. Besides, other topics on this study can also be the

subject of this research works.

LAW STUDENTS. Findings of this study can serve as an on hand

reference to law students in their law education.

COMMUNITY. Proceeds of this study will be beneficial to the

community, since the results there under might inform them their

basic human rights

6

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined both conceptually and

operationally to further grasps the meaning of this endeavor.

HUMAN RIGHTS. Human rights are rights inherent to all human

beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex,

national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any

other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights

without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated,

interdependent and indivisible.5

SOCIAL CONTRACT. The agreement among individuals by which

society becomes organized and invested with the right to secure

mutual protection and welfare.6

EGALITARIAN. Of, relating to, or upholding the doctrine of

the equality of mankind and the desirability of political,

social, and economic equality.7

5 Loc. Cit. OHCHR6 Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, by Random House, Inc7 Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers, 2003

7

UTILITARIAN. A person who believes the doctrine that the

morally correct course of action consists in the greatest good

for the greatest number, that is, in maximizing the total benefit

resulting, without regard to the distribution of benefits and

burdens.8

ECONOMIC INEQUALITY. The unequal distribution of household

or individual income across the various participants in an

economy. Income inequality is often presented as the percentage

of income to a percentage of population.9

CAPITALIST SYSTEM. An economic system in which the means of

production and distribution are privately or corporately owned

and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment

of profits gained in a free market.10

STATE OF NATURE. A concept used by social contract theory to

illustrate the primordial natural condition of human society

before the existence of a government.11

8 Ibid.9 Income Inequality Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/income-inequality.asp#ixzz3pUH1ngxE10 American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company11 Bryan Nelson, Western Political Thought: From Socrates to the Age of Ideology, Waveland Press, 1996

8

VEIL OF IGNORANCE. A device designed by John Rawls in order

to minimize the influence of selfish bias in attempting to

determine what would be just.12

12 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, p. 3-6 , the Belknap Press of Harvard university press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971

9

Chapter II

DISCUSSION

HUMAN RIGHTS

Human rights are moral principles that set out certain

standards of human behavior, and are regularly protected as legal

rights in national and international law. They are "commonly

understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is

inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."13

Human rights are thus conceived as universal and egalitarian. The

doctrine of human rights has been highly influential within

international law, global and regional institutions. Policies of

states and in the activities of non-governmental organizations

and have become a cornerstone of public policy around the world.

The idea of human rights suggests, "if the public discourse of

peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral

language, it is that of human rights." The strong claims made by

the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable

skepticism and debates about the content, nature and

justifications of human rights to this day. Indeed, the question

13 Loc. cit. OHCHR

10

of what is meant by a "right" is itself controversial and the

subject of continued philosophical debate.

Rights may be seen as emanating from various sources,

whether religion or the nature of man or the nature of society.

Modern rights theories cover a wide range of approaches, and this

clearly emphasizes the need to come to terms with the

requirements of an evolving legal system that cannot be totally

comprehended in terms of that system itself. 14

During the nineteenth century, states around the world have

acknowledged the importance of global interdependence.15 A number

of theories were entered related to piracy jure gentium – to stop

it and slavery - to bring about its abolition. Concern also with

the treatment of sick and wounded soldiers and with prisoners of

war developed in terms of international instrument while states

were required to observe certain minimum standards in the

treatment of aliens. In addition, certain agreements of a general

welfare nature were beginning to be adopted by the turn of the

century. The nineteenth century also appeared to accept a right

of humanitarian intervention, although its range and extent were

unclear.16

14 Malcom C. Shaw, INTERNATIONAL LAW FIFTH EDITION, p. 247 Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, 200315 Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics ,McGraw-Hill Higher Education,197916 Loc. Cit. Shaw

11

This dynamic process of concretization of basic principles

has been accompanied, particularly after the Second World War, by

impressive achievements in the field of the codification and

progressive development of international law. From its previous

state of amorphousness and imprecision, the law of nations has

grown into a highly organized system of rules.17

THEORY BASED ON JUSTICE

Rawls burst into prominence in 1958 with the publication of

his game-changing paper, “Justice as Fairness,” and the revival

of social contract theory. This led to a greatly developed book

version, A Theory of Justice, published in 1971, arguably the

most important book of American philosophy published in the

second half of the last century. Rawls makes it clear that his

theory, which he calls “justice as fairness,” assumes an

egalitarian, morally autonomous, rational agents, who are not

necessarily egoists. He also makes it clear early on that he

means to present his theory as a preferable alternative to that

of utilitarians.18

17 INTERNATIONAL LAW AS A LANGUAGE FORINTERNATIONAL RELATIONS18 Op. Cit. Rawls, pp. 12-26

12

He asks us to imagine persons in a hypothetical “initial

situation,” a term corresponding to the “state of nature” coined

by social contractualist, which he calls “the original position”

This is strikingly characterized by what Rawls calls “the veil of

ignorance.” To illustrate it, if you must decide on what sort of

society you could commit yourself to accepting as a permanent

member and were not allowed to factor in specific knowledge about

yourself—such as your gender, race, ethnic identity, level of

intelligence, physical strength, quickness and stamina, and so

forth—then you would presumably exercise the rational choice to

make the society as fair for everyone as possible, lest you find

yourself at the bottom of that society for the rest of your life.

In such a “purely hypothetical” situation, Rawls believes that we

would rationally adopt two basic principles of justice for our

society: “the first requires equality in the assignment of basic

rights and duties”, while the second holds that social and

economic inequalities.19

In terms of its epistemological status, Rawls says that the

original position is hypothetical in nature. Rawls argues that

these principles are in fact what the parties would agree upon if

they were in that hypothetical situation of the original

position. Rawls explains this by calling upon us “to imagine a

19 Ibid.

13

state of nature where we are blind as to our status or position

in society”. This includes, for all members of society, not

knowing where one would end up or which fortunes one gets in the

natural lottery. Under this veil of ignorance, the position of

equality is guaranteed. It ensures that those who might be able

to influence the process in their favor, due to their better

position in society, are unable to do so. This means, more

importantly, that justice is about “protecting the weak and

innocent” against the abuses of the strong and “binding the

powerful” to the full moral force of the law.

Here we see Rawls conceiving of justice, the primary social

virtue, as requiring equal basic liberties for all citizens and a

presumption of equality even regarding socio-economic goods. He

emphasizes the point that these principles rule out as unjust the

utilitarian justification of disadvantages for some on account of

greater advantages for others, since that would be rationally

unacceptable to one operating under the veil of ignorance. Rawls

is opposed to the teleological or consequentialist gambit of

defining the right in terms of “maximizing the good”; he rather

is committed to a “priority of the right over the good.” Justice

is not reducible to utility or pragmatic desirability. We should

notice that the first principle of justice, which requires

maximum equality of rights and duties for all members of society,

14

is prior in “serial or lexical order” to the second, which

specifies how socio-economic inequalities can be justified.20

Again, this is anti-utilitarian, in that no increase in

socio-economic benefits for anyone can ever justify anything less

than maximum equality of rights and duties for all. Thus, for

example, if enslaving a few members of society generated vastly

more benefits for the majority than liabilities for them, such a

bargain would be categorically ruled out as unjust.

THEORY BASED ON JUSTICE:

A FUNDAMENTAL THEORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Rawls in articulation of these two principles of justice,

illustrates his theory’s relation with the international

protection of human rights. He reformulates the first one in

terms of maximum equal liberty, writing that “each person is to

have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty

compatible with a similar liberty for others.” The basic

liberties intended concern such civil rights as are protected in

our constitution — free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of

conscience, the right to private property, the rights to vote and

20 Ibid.

15

hold public office, freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure,

etc.21

In this sense, he embody a belief that no government has the

power to curtail one’s basic right. However, there a lexical

priority of this which requires that it be categorical in that

the only justification for limiting any basic liberties would be

to enhance other basic liberties; for example, it might be just

to limit free access of the press to a sensational legal

proceeding in order to protect the right of the accused to a fair

trial.

Rawls restates his second principle to maintain that “social

and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are

both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and

(b) attached to positions and offices open to all.” Thus socio-

economic inequalities can be justified, but only if both

conditions are met.22

The first condition, “the difference principle,” takes

seriously the idea that every socio-economic difference

separating one member of society from others must be beneficial

to all, including the person ranked lowest. The second condition

is one of “fair equality of opportunity,” in that socio-economic

advantages must be connected to positions to which all members of

21 Ibid. pp. 60-6522 Ibid. pp. 75, 83

16

society could have access.23 An example to this second principle

is that the office of the presidency has attached to it greater

social prestige and income than is available to most of us but it

can be just only if assuming that all of us, as citizens, could

achieve that office with its compensations and that even those of

us at or near the bottom of the socio-economic scale benefit from

intelligent, talented people accepting the awesome

responsibilities of that office.

Just as the first principle must be lexically prior to the

second, Rawls also maintains that “fair opportunity is prior to

the difference principle.” Thus, if we have to choose between

equal opportunity for all and socio-economically benefiting “the

least advantaged” members of society, the former has priority

over the latter. Most of us today might be readily sympathetic

to the first principle and the equal opportunity condition, while

finding the difference principle to be objectionably egalitarian,

to the point of threatening incentives to contribute more than is

required. Rawls does consider a “mixed conception” of justice

that most of us would regard as more attractive “arising when the

principle of average utility constrained by a certain social

minimum is substituted for the difference principle, everything

else remaining unchanged.” But there would be a problem of

23 Ibid. pp. 302-303

17

fairly agreeing on that acceptable social minimum, and it would

change with shifting contingent circumstances. 24

In relation to the above, justice as fairness makes it a

moral imperative that the moral value of individual freedom far

outweighs the general welfare for if one person is to be

sacrificed for the good of all then that would be a violation of

the basic principle of justice as fairness. This is because,

according to Rawls, each person, from the point of view of

liberal justice, possesses an inviolable value that not even the

welfare of society can override.[7] In classical utilitarianism,

as we have said at the outset, the good consists in maximizing

overall welfare, even if that sacrifices someone. For

utilitarianism, general welfare is prioritized over the basic

liberty of each. This basically violates the person’s basic

autonomy – the person’s very essence – for he or she is reduced

to a mere means to an end in order for the majority to achieve

whatever they so desire.

The basic point is that in this condition of equal

opportunity for all, people can pursue their life-plans and

profit from the same, but they must contribute through taxes to

serve the worst off or the disadvantaged, an adjustment meant to

ensure that the worst off can have the opportunity to improve

their lives. This is what the famous difference principle calls

24 Ibid. p.316

18

for. Fairness in the liberal sense therefore means that justice

is served when we treat people as equals, “not by removing all

inequalities, but only those which disadvantage the worst off.”

IMPORTANCE OF THE THEORY BASED ON JUSTICE

IN MODERN SOCIETY

Addressing Domestic and Political Issues in Society

For Rawls in addressing this kind of issues the government

must always aim that the steps and measure they make must always

be for the equal opportunity for all and for socio-economically

benefiting “the least advantaged.” He also suggests that if the

severity of the injustice is not great, then respect for

democratic majority rule might morally dictate compliance.

However, if appeals to the political majority have been

reasonably tried and failed and their measures have caused

injustice to some, then Rawls believes that it is reasonable that

civil disobedience be used in addressing the domestic and

political issues since no society is perfectly just.25

A generally or “nearly just society” can have unjust laws,

in which case its citizens may or may not have a duty to comply

25 Ibid. pp. 350-351

19

with them, depending on how severely unjust they are. Otherwise,

citizens can feel a moral obligation to engage in civil

disobedience, which Rawls defines as “a public, nonviolent,

conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with

the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the

government.” Certain conditions must be met in order that an act

of civil disobedience be justified: (1) it should normally

address violations of equal civil liberties and/or of “fair

equality of opportunity”, with violations of the difference

principle being murkier and, thus, harder to justify; (2) the act

of civil disobedience should come only after appeals to the

political majority have been reasonably tried and failed; (3) it

must seem likely to accomplish more good than harm for the social

order. 26

Yet, even if all three of these conditions seem to be met

and the disobedient action seems right, there remains the

practical question of whether it would be “wise or prudent,”

under the circumstances, to engage in the act of civil

disobedience. Ultimately, every individual must decide for

himself or herself whether such action is morally and

prudentially justifiable or not as reasonably and responsibly as

possible. The acts of civil disobedience of Martin Luther King

(to whom Rawls refers in a footnote) seem to have met all the

26 Ibid. pp. 352- 367

20

conditions, to have been done in the name of justice, and to have

been morally justified.27

Pluralism of Ideas

A just society must protect basic liberties equally for all

of its members, including freedom of thought and its necessary

condition, freedom of expression. But, in a free society that

protects these basic liberties, a pluralism of views and values

is likely to develop, such that people can seriously disagree

about matters they hold dear. They will develop their own

comprehensive doctrines, or systems of beliefs that may govern

all significant aspects of their lives. These may be religious

or philosophical or moral. Yet a variety of potentially

conflicting comprehensive doctrines may be such that all are

reasonable. In such a case, social unity requires respect for

and tolerance of other sets of beliefs. It would be unjust

deliberately to suppress reasonable comprehensive doctrines

merely because they are different from our own.

The problem of political liberalism nowadays is how we can

establish “a stable and just society whose free and equal

citizens are deeply divided by conflicting and even

incommensurable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines.”

27 Ibid. pp. 372-376, 389-390

21

What is needed is a shared “political conception of justice” that

is neutral regarding competing comprehensive doctrines. This

could allow for “an overlapping consensus of reasonable

comprehensive doctrines,” such that tolerance and mutual respect

are operative even among those committed to incompatible views

and values, so long as they are reasonable. In short, the society

must develop a workable “overlapping consensus” despite the

challenges to social union posed by a pluralism of “reasonable

comprehensive doctrines.”28

The International Sphere

Given that not all societies act justly and that societies

have a right to defend themselves against aggressive violent

force, there can be a right to go to war (jus ad bellum). Yet

even then, not all is fair in war, and rules of just warfare (jus

in bello) should be observed: (1) the goal must be a “just and

lasting peace”; (2) it must be waged in defense of freedom and

security from aggression; (3) reasonable attempts must be made

not to attack innocent non-combatants; (4) the human rights of

enemies (for example, against being tortured) must be respected;

(5) attempts should be made to establish peaceful relations; and

(6) practical tactics must always remain within the parameters of

28 John Rawls, Political Liberalism pp. 291-292, 340-342, 145, xviii, 13, 152n., 59-60, 133, 154-155, 144, 134, Columbia University Press, 1993

22

moral principles. After hostilities have ceased, just conquerors

must treat their conquered former enemies with respect—not, for

example, enslaving them or denying them civil liberties. 29

Also by applying the theory based on justice’s egalitarian

principle of distributive justice. It will address socio-

economic equalities that are to the detriment of the world’s

worst-off persons. Thomas Pogge, a German Philosopher, proposes

“a global resources tax, or GRT.” This means that, although each

of the peoples of our planet “owns and fully controls all

resources within its national territory,” it will be taxed on all

of the resources it extracts. If it uses those extracted

resources itself, it must pay the tax itself. If it sells some

to other societies, presumably at least part of the tax burden

will be borne by buyers in the form of higher sales prices. “The

GRT is then a tax on consumption” of our planet’s resources.30

As a result, corporations extracting resources would pay

their taxes to their governments which, in turn, would be

responsible for transferring funds to disadvantaged societies to

help the global poor. Such payments should be regarded as “a

matter of entitlement rather than charity,” an obligation of

international justice. If the governments of the poorer states

were honest, they could disburse the funds; if they were corrupt,

29 John Rawls, Law on People pp, 94-96, 98-99, 37, 106, 114-117, Harvard University Press, 200130 Thomas Pogge, An Egalitarian Law on Peoples, pp. 195-196, Blackwell Publishing 1994

23

then transfers could go through United Nations agencies and/or

nongovernmental organizations. At any rate, they should be

channeled toward societies in which they could improve the lot of

the poor and disadvantaged. 31

But, one might wonder, would well-off societies only be

motivated to pay their fair share by benevolence, a sense of

justice, and possible shame at being exposed for not doing so?

No, there could be international sanctions: “Once the agency

facilitating the flow of GRT payments reports that a country has

not met its obligations under the scheme, all other countries are

required to impose duties on imports from, and perhaps also

similar levies on exports to, this country to raise funds

equivalent to its GRT obligations plus the cost of these

enforcement measures.” Pogge believes that well-off societies

should recognize that his more egalitarian model of international

relations is also more just than Rawls’s law of peoples.32

IT’S APPLICATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

Rawls considers his theory as "ideal", and is not

particularly worried by the unreality of his assumptions.

However, at some point he will want to justify the usefulness of

31 Ibid. pp 119-202,205, 32 Ibid. pp 219-204

24

ideal theory in generating conclusions which are applicable to

experience. Perhaps enough has been said about the unreality of

the assumptions built into the description of the original

position to raise doubts about the possible relevance to reality

of the outcome of the theory. Each assumption taken individually

is plausible. But cumulatively, the whole set of qualifications

generates a model which is so divorced from reality that it loses

all power to tell us anything about justice in the world of our

experience. A summary, based on the Philippine society, of those

assumptions would help:

1. The principles are to be chosen for a normal situation of

non-starvation, in which the contractors know that the

achievement of liberty is possible. But we ask what is

required in justice in a world and a country like the

Philippines where millions are actually starving, and

are actually locked in a poverty trap.

2. The principles are to be chosen for a "well-ordered

society." But the problem of justice in many places

today like the Philippines is how to establish order in

societies which are riven by conflicts.

3. The choosers are non-envious. But we are concerned about

justice in a world and in countries like the Philippines

25

in which people are very conscious of the differences in

wealth, advantage and power.

4. The choosers know general facts. But we seek justice in a

Third World country in which access to knowledge is not

universal, and in which the content of knowledge is

ideologically significant.

5. The choosers are ignorant of relevant details about

themselves. But that imagined degree of ignorance is

nonhuman. In addition, with the emergence of the social

media, Filipinos are becoming self-conscious on what is

popular or “trendy.”

6. The contractors do not know their life-plans, but they do

know how to realize them. In fact, the model reverses

our usual experience. Usually, people know what they

want, but don't know how to get it. In Rawls's theory,

the choosers don't know what they want, but they do know

how to get it.

Another problem of that theory, as Robert Paul Wolff

suggest, is that it treats the problem of justice as one of pure

distribution. How wealth has been produced is not considered

relevant to deciding how it is to be distributed. So there would

be no difference between distributing a cake which has appeared

from nowhere, and dividing up a cake which one of the group has

26

baked. This neglect blinds Rawls to the existence of powerful

groups, as for example those who control some means of production

and can hold out for a greater share in the distribution, or

those who control some aspect of distribution like social welfare

officials. The reality of power as we encounter it ought to make

its impact on a theory of justice. The neglect of this reality

undermines any relevance Rawls's theory might have for our

concern for justice. 33 Like in Philippines, whereby oligarchs

have full control of the economic and political sphere of the

whole nation, what is happening is the difference of the

difference principle. Rather than removing the disadvantage to

the “worst-off,” the scenario in our country is that these

oligarchs are the one who create such disadvantages. These

oligarchs would not want to be tax in order for the tax to be

given to the “worst-off.”

Another problem is that fairness is discussed generally

in terms of equality of opportunity, which suggests that a bigger

income is deserved as long as there has been fair competition.

But such notion of fair competition can put those who do not

possess high intelligence or skill at a disadvantage. The concept

of fair competition is deceptive because others have natural

talents they do not deserve to possess if we put premium in the

33 John Paul Wolff, Understanding John Rawls: A Reconstruction and Critique of “A Theory Based on Justice,” Princeton University Press, 1977

27

moral equality of persons. The central argument of Rawls then is

that all social arrangements, to be fair, should ultimately favor

the worst off, whose disadvantage, say in their social position

or natural talent is something they don’t deserve.

It can also be argued that the distribution of resources in

terms of income only touches the superficial symptoms of poverty

but does not address the differences and heterogeneities between

two people. For instance, person A and B can have the same amount

of income. But if person A is a person with a physical handicap,

there is no real equality though they have the same amount of

income. The difference principle is good, but not good enough.

[13] The income approach only addresses the poverty of income but

not the poverty of human life. Unjust social arrangements

diminish the capabilities of people, and as such, re-arranging

the mode of social cooperation therefore entails looking at

holistic approaches to development. For instance, if we consider

those with natural disabilities, it is not income that they need

but a sense of human well-being beyond what economic provisions

provide.

Another problem with this theory is that John Rawls, unlike

other egalitarian advocate, failed to suggest measures to

initiate such ideal state. In order for our country to become

egalitarian, an action less than a revolution would not suffice.

28

In general, rather than creating an idealistic world, the

Philippines, in general would be solving its problem by accepting

realities and by overcoming real problems that hinder our

economic, social and political development.

29

Chapter 3

CONCLUSION

Following a brief presentation of the essentials of Rawls's

theory of justice the researcher concluded that:

In general, the Theory Based on Justice is an outstanding

political theory. However, such theory is hard to materialize and

apply in a today’s society.

However, the problems lie with its application since we all

know that the oligarchs controlling the global economy would not

want a redistributive taxation to the poor, and they would

commonly object that such taxation involves the immoral taking of

their just holdings.

With regard to its application on human rights, it is an

outstanding theory since its main discussion is the protection of

the basic rights and given the people equal opportunity to all.

His take on individual human rights is worth appraising.

He develop such measures to ensure that the political

majority would not try to create measures that would endanger the

“worst off”. He believe that civil disobedience is a tool of a

just society in order to combat such measures.

30

The theory, however, has little to teach us about justice

which might help us to cope with the pressing problems of justice

in the Philippines. What the Philippines need is not to create an

ideal form of State in order for it to solve problems but to

accept the real problems that hinder our daily life and solve

each problem one at a time.

31

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Nelson, Bryan. Western Political Thought: From Socrates to the

Age of Ideology. Waveland Press. 1996

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971

Rawls, John. Law on People. Belknap Press of Harvard University

Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2001

Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press,

1993

Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. McGraw-Hill

Higher Education.1979

Shaw, Malcom C. International Law, 5th ed. Cambridge University

Press, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, 2003

JOURNALS

Pogge, Thomas. An Egalitarian Law on Peoples, Blackwell

Publishing. 1994

32

Wolff, John Paul. Understanding John Rawls: A Reconstruction and

Critique of “A Theory Based on Justice.” Princeton

University Press. 1977

DICTIONARY

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth

Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Publishing Company

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged ©

HarperCollins Publishers, 2003

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K

Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, by Random House, Inc

INTERNET SOURCES

http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/

magna-carta.html

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/WhoWeAre.aspx

Income Inequality Definition | Investopedia

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/income-

inequality.asp#ixzz3pUH1ngxE

33