Persuasive argument Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Persuasive argument - Essay Example Rawls therefore tends to believe that enforcing a universal law within this diverse nature of the society is unworkable and hence raises two main fundamental issues: legitimacy and stability. In his view therefore democracy is based on justice in a liberal society since it promotes and provides for basic human rights that determine justice. In the view of Rawls, the use of unified law is not legitimate in a democratic society and hence it is not practical for a liberal society to work or function correctly while they are unified by one law and when they claim democracy. He also argues that in a democratic system, the political power is always based on the people and hence the legitimate use of the coercive political power is misplaced. The people here are viewed as a collective body. In this perspective we can not that Rawls is putting more emphasis on the will of the people and not on the political representatives in delivering justice. In fact, this argument can be interpreted to mean that the political power is not based on the individuals but on the people as a collective body. Rawls argument is that we cannot deliver justice to the people with just imposing on law to the people. This is because it is not legitimate for the democratic system to put all its citizens to follow just one law since the citizens themselves will always inevitably hold different views. In this perspective it would not function well and hence justice would only be delivered to certain few individuals who hold the same views or close views to the ones imposed by the law. The rest with diverse views would always conflict with the law enforcement agencies and it is not desirable. The issue of stability on the other hand puts the issue of democracy and political power from the receiving end. In this way, an individual would not obey the law if it is imposed on him or her by the individuals or a collective body with different values and beliefs to his or her own. He therefore argues that lack of willingness by the citizens of a particular society to obey the law is the main cause of inst ability in that social order. According to the Rawls’s ‘liberal principle of legitimacy† can only be used in such way that all citizens would be expected to endorse the law. In this regard, the use of political power must therefore fulfill the requirements of the citizens or the criterion that is necessary for reciprocity. The set of laws must be accepted reasonably by the citizens in this perspective, it is important to realize that the power of the people prevails in determine the success of particular law. The societal fundamental arrangements with regard to politics must be universally and freely accepted by the people and no just because they are minor or not informed about such laws. In this way of argument, Rawls believe that the people whom the law has coerced have to accept the law freely. This is important since it serve to address the problems of legitimacy. In this context, Rawls is giving light to his argument. It does not mean that justice delivered to the diverse composition o the society have to capture all the views oif the people. However, the coerced people should freely accept the law even though they are against their conception and not because the laws have been imposed on them. In this way, Rawls explains the first section that the power is based on the citizens. This explains why we cannot deliver justice in a non democratic society since the majority rule would prevail against the minor groups in the society or larger groups. But since