English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This essay intends to criticize the theory of John Rawls on justice as fairness. In order to do so, this essay chooses the strong and well-argued theory of John Locke on human rights and the civil government as a contrast. This essay holds the opinion that the choice of Rawls to base his theory entirely on a weak assumption is the main difference from Locke, and such choice ends up to be the lack of soundness in premises and the lack of logical cohesiveness. These defects in the theory might result in dangerous, however, unpredictable consequences. This essay mainly explores their theory through their views upon rationality and equality. The essay provides a solution out of such defects which might be hard to be accepted by scientific academia. That is to bring back metaphysical premises to the political philosophy. At the end of this essay, a strong accusation is made against the positivism and to defend the metaphysics in political philosophy.

Differences Between Rawls and Locke: From the Perspectives of Rationality and Equality