Rawls distributive justice -

Rawls’ theory of justice, also known as the Theory of Distributive Justice, is a key framework that focuses
on addressing the conditions of the most disadvantaged members of society. It emphasizes the
principles of fairness, equality, and the distribution of resources in a way that benefits those who are
least advantaged.When it comes to the provisions of affirmative action as provided under the Indian
constitution, Rawls’ theory of justice can indeed provide valuable insights and guidance. Affirmative
action policies in India, such as reservations and quotas, aim to provide equal opportunities and
representation to historically marginalized and disadvantaged communities.Rawls’ theory aligns with the
spirit of affirmative action in that it seeks to rectify social inequalities and promote justice for those who
have been historically oppressed or discriminated against. By providing specific privileges and
opportunities to underprivileged groups, affirmative action aims to create a more equitable
society.Rawls’ principle of the “original position” and the “veil of ignorance” can be particularly relevant
in the context of affirmative action provisions. These principles suggest that if individuals were placed in
a hypothetical situation where they did not know their social status, gender, or caste, they would create
a just society that ensures equal opportunities for all. This concept can be applied to the design and
implementation of affirmative action policies, ensuring that they are fair and unbiased.However, it is
essential to note that Rawls’ theory also emphasizes the principle of meritocracy, which means that
individuals should be rewarded based on their abilities and efforts. Some argue that affirmative action
policies may sometimes clash with this principle, as they may prioritize social identities over individual
merit. Striking a balance between promoting justice and ensuring meritocracy is essential in the
implementation of affirmative action.Ultimately, Rawls’ theory of justice can provide a theoretical
foundation for the applicability and justification of affirmative action provisions under the Indian
constitution. It offers a framework that promotes the idea of distributive justice, addresses historical
injustices, and seeks to establish a fairer society. However, the precise application of these principles in
practice requires careful consideration and periodic evaluation to ensure that they effectively address
social inequalities while maintaining fairness.

Prof Finnis in his Natural law theory has rejected morality as the basis of law and substituted it with
pratical reasonableness. Critically examine with appropriate cases?

In order to critically examine the standpoint of Prof Finnis in his Natural law theory, which rejects
morality as the basis of law and replaces it with practical reasonableness, it is important to explore the
implications and consider appropriate cases.Firstly, it is necessary to understand the context of Finnis'
rejection of morality as the foundation of law. According to Finnis, morality is a subjective concept that
may vary among individuals or societies. Therefore, it cannot provide a universal basis for legal
principles. Instead, Finnis advocates for the utilization of practical reasonableness, which implies that
laws should be based on rationality and common sense.One potential advantage of substituting morality
with practical reasonableness is that it allows for a more flexible and pragmatic approach to law. This
approach can adjust to the changing needs and circumstances of society. It avoids the potential pitfalls of
confining law within a rigid moral framework that may not adequately address new and complex societal
issues. However, this perspective also raises several concerns. By excluding morality as the foundation of
law, there is a risk of reducing law to mere rule-based calculations that may not necessarily align with
widely accepted moral standards. This could lead to legal decisions that are ethically questionable or fail
to address fundamental values of justice. Additionally, the concept of practical reasonableness might lack
coherent criteria for determining what is reasonable in different situations. What may be considered
reasonable by one individual or group may be seen as unreasonable by others. This subjectivity leaves
room for potential conflicts and inconsistencies in the application of laws.One relevant case that
exemplifies the importance of moral considerations in the law is Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision by the
U.S. Supreme Court on abortion rights. In this case, the court defined the legal framework for a woman's
right to choose abortion. The decision incorporated moral considerations, such as a woman's right to
privacy and control over her own body. If practical reasonableness were the sole basis for the law, these
underlying moral principles may have been overlooked, potentially leading to an unjust
outcome.Another case that sheds light on the significance of morality in legal decisions is Obergefell v.
Hodges, where the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the right to same-sex marriage. This ruling was
grounded in principles of equality, dignity, and autonomy, which are moral values deeply embedded in
societal norms. By emphasizing practical reasonableness alone, these moral considerations may have
been undermined, potentially impeding progress towards a more inclusive and equitable society.In
conclusion, while Prof Finnis proposes practical reasonableness as an alternative to morality as the basis
for law, it is important to critically examine this perspective. While practical reasonableness offers
advantages such as flexibility, it also raises concerns related to potential ethical inconsistencies and
subjectivity. The inclusion of moral considerations provides a foundation for addressing fundamental
values and justice in legal decisions. Ultimately, a balanced approach that incorporates both practical
reasonableness and morality could provide a more comprehensive and just framework for the