Fairness we should have with respect to future generations, is characteristic of another theory of Justice, described by John Rawls, which tells us that an action will be considered fair provided it is done from an original position and with a veil of ignorance. This means that our actions must be carried out without predict who will be the recipient of the consequences. This ideology is based on an imparcialismo, which means that for the issuance of judgments we don’t need have too many details about our situation or the persons concerned, since we caeriamos the risk of conduct prejudices and therefore eligible for some and indirectly harming others. As we can see, we are mixing two concepts which in principle are opposite each other. A part tells us that we must assess the negative consequences of our actions and thinking about who will be affected, but John Rawls theory tells us that we must not carry out prejudices and act blindly to ensure the fairness of the consequences. On the one hand, Rawls refutes utilitarianism since its original position no person knows what special interests will have, everyone is going to want to make a maximum of freedom to be able to devote to the interests that you purchase at the time of joining the society. Click Maersk Drilling for additional related pages. At the same time, Utilitarianism says that the ideology of Rawls, not considering the impact of the actions cannot be applied since it goes against basic human policies. roach.
If presented two theories are contradictory to each other, how can we establish a framework that promotes environmental equity? I believe that any theory of Justice can take as absolute standard, each one has its pros and cons. In this case specific, must perform an exercise that integrates part of the utilitarian theories but also part of the theory of Justice of John Rawls. A basic idea would be aware of the consequences of our actions and assess what the least possible damage that we can perform, that is, be aware of our current context (need to obtain a broad knowledge about our ecological situation and the needs of others) and allow this improve or keep for future generations in an equitable manner to all. This will only be possible if we act without bias. Only this so we could say that we live with responsibility towards our society since we would allow that our natural resources are conserved and thrive for generations to come.
These problems affect humanity today, but they are problems which will be great for future generations, which will hinder their harmonious development and will have consequences for their level of quality of life. It is our responsibility to provide them an equitable world propitious to their development, although this is simply to stop environmental deterioration. This way could avoid favouring certain sectors of society and be able to make a distribution of assets (or in this case to avoid damage to all alike) in a fairer manner.