Rawls Theory of Justice

Furthermore, in the theory of justice Rawls attempts to resolve the utilitarian and deontological approach to ethics by arguing with the Kantian social contract model. However, Rawls recognized that the justice as fairness is based in the Kant’s notion of autonomy. Rawls goes further and explain theory of justice as the original position principle where the justice based in the veiled ignorance, according to Rawls "no one knows his place in society his class position or social status" (Rawls, 1999 (ed), p.118).
In the theory of justice Rawls support the element of the Kantian social contract philosophy, Rawls does agree with Kant’s ideal of cosmopolitan constitution in term of cosmopolitan theory of justice. This essay will answer the question by critically evaluate Rawls’ theory in relation to the cosmopolitan theory of justice, first of all I have to evaluate the core elements of Rawls’ theory of justice and than I have to analyses these elements with leading to the cosmopolitan justice theory ( Rawls, translated by Michelle kosch 2007).
In the theory of justice Rawls consider the liberty and the different principle which it change of the classical model of the social contract by explain the social inequality within a distributive veil of ignorance. Rawls in the veal of ignorance tries to explain that the individual in the society have a system of equality. Accordingly, Rawls says that each person have an equal right to the most general proposal of equal basic liberties compatible with similar rights of liberties of others (Rawls, 1999 (ed) p.53). Moreover, these basic principles are absolute and cannot be violated, an example of these right freedom from arbitrary arrest and the freedom of speech (Rawls, 1999 (ed), p.53).
However, Kant’s theory of social contract is based by his emphasis of innate morality, Rawls acknowledge difference and social inequality as compatible within the "justice" paradigm. For example in the term of the inequality distribution Rawls says that inequality is only acceptable in the theory of justice under the second principle. This undermines the Kantian ideas of the cosmopolitan system of justice which based in an innate moral propensity towards democracy as a result of the human intellectual independence. In theory of the rationale for being human Kant’s suggests that it is the interrelationship between intellectual independence and morality this considers be that is central to concepts of democracy.
In this point, there will be social inequality, Rawls goes further to justify this in his theory of justice model on the grounds that the social differences are acceptable if they are the maximum benefits to the least advantaged members of the society (Rawls, 1999, (eds) p.84) . Rawls goes further and suggests that there can be unequal basic rights in proof of fixed natural characteristics. According to Rawls " if say, men are favoured in the assignment of basic rights, this inequality is justified by the difference principle.only if it is to the advantage of women and acceptable from their standpoint"(Rawls, 1999, (eds) (p.85). However, the difference principle makes it clear that Rawls denouncement of the cosmopolitan justice principle, his argument appears to be inherently flawed in effectively sanctioning discrimination on subjective grounds. Furthermore, there is