Commentary - (2021) Volume 9, Issue 2
Received: 02-Jun-2021 Published: 23-Jun-2021
The need of drawing a boundary of the social right is essential in terms of damaging social justice in addition to financial contradictions created by it. In addition to the financial contradictions created by drawing the boundary of the social right, it is also essential in terms of damaging social justice. It is possible to distinguish between deservers and those who do not deserve in course of the fulfillment of social rights in case of that the perception of social justice can be settled in social perceptions in a healthy way.
Social justice emerges as a concept related to the realization of the fair in society. In this regard, creation of justice perception requires a lot of social regulations. Social regulations also points to Social Contract of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The social contract consists of individual individuals' willing to live together as a union that arises from the need to defend against attacks or external disasters alone, and that they will be linked to some rules for sustainability of society and protection of damaging each other’s. The focus of the contract lies justice as a social virtue. In this context, discussing the understanding of justice from the perspective of distributive justice will be able to offer solutions to the problem of whether health service is a social right or how it should be placed in a framework. In this frame, Egalitarian, Liberal, Utilitarian and Communitarianism social justice theories will be discussed.
Rawls focuses on individual-oriented justice understanding for conceptualizing of his social justice perception. The individual-oriented understanding of justice is based on the fact that, for whatever reason, the rights of the individual are untouchable, bargaining cannot be made and even.
If social interests are concerned, individual rights must be protected. In this regard, injustice situation can be tolerated if and only if that greater individual right would be violated or more social and economic acquisitions would be present.
Rawls, by aware of ontological justifications of living together in as society, explains social justice as that individual rights and its duties or responsibilities in a society are concrete. In other words, social justice is that social coexistence’s burdens and benefits are distributed to individuals properly. Rawls also construct his justice understanding on fundamental principles named fairness and addressing to generate common living rules of a society. Because, while individual makes decisions rationally for self-good, society also have to make decision for which one is fair or not for its self-good. According to Rawls, these principles are determined at the ground that both side are not fully conscious and, because of it, that which side have advantage or have disadvantage is not clear; in other words, as a results of deals and negotiations that are open for everybody in society.
Social rules specified by preferences are legalized as a contract. In particular, these include what each individual in the community can do or cannot do and ways of prevent and punish in case of any violation. In this regard, these rules have to be governed in order to practice. This situation requires a state in order to prevent individuals in the community an outrage upon justice as Hobbes expressed.