SUS1501
Assignment 4 Semester 1 2026
Unique number: 226675
Due Date: 2 April 2026
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
STEP 1: ANSWER THE QUESTION "IS THIS OK?" - COUNTS 60% OF MARKS
Is this ok?
1. Analysis of the inequality using all of John Rawls’ principles in the correct
order
To answer whether this situation is morally acceptable, I will apply John
Rawls’ principles of justice in the correct order. Rawls argues that a just
society must first protect equal basic liberties, then ensure fair equality of
opportunity, and only then allow inequalities if they satisfy the difference
principle.
First principle: Equal basic liberties
Rawls’ first principle states that every person must have an equal right to the most
extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for others. These basic
liberties include freedom of thought, freedom of association, political participation,
and protection under the law. In the South African context, these liberties formally
exist under the Constitution. On paper, both Patrice Motsepe and poor South
Africans possess the same legal rights.
However, when one looks at the reality of poverty, it becomes clear that basic
liberties are not always equally meaningful in practice. A person who is hungry,
unemployed, or struggling to survive may technically have political freedom and legal
rights, but those rights are harder to exercise fully. A person living below the food
poverty line does not enjoy liberty in the same practical sense as a billionaire does.
Poverty restricts a person’s ability to make real choices about education, health,
work, and participation in public life. So although equal liberties may exist formally,
their real value is undermined by severe deprivation.
Second principle, part one: Fair equality of opportunity
Rawls’ second principle begins with fair equality of opportunity. This means that
positions of advantage should not merely be open in theory. People with similar
talent and willingness to work should have genuinely fair chances to succeed,
regardless of the social class into which they are born.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
Assignment 4 Semester 1 2026
Unique number: 226675
Due Date: 2 April 2026
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
STEP 1: ANSWER THE QUESTION "IS THIS OK?" - COUNTS 60% OF MARKS
Is this ok?
1. Analysis of the inequality using all of John Rawls’ principles in the correct
order
To answer whether this situation is morally acceptable, I will apply John
Rawls’ principles of justice in the correct order. Rawls argues that a just
society must first protect equal basic liberties, then ensure fair equality of
opportunity, and only then allow inequalities if they satisfy the difference
principle.
First principle: Equal basic liberties
Rawls’ first principle states that every person must have an equal right to the most
extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for others. These basic
liberties include freedom of thought, freedom of association, political participation,
and protection under the law. In the South African context, these liberties formally
exist under the Constitution. On paper, both Patrice Motsepe and poor South
Africans possess the same legal rights.
However, when one looks at the reality of poverty, it becomes clear that basic
liberties are not always equally meaningful in practice. A person who is hungry,
unemployed, or struggling to survive may technically have political freedom and legal
rights, but those rights are harder to exercise fully. A person living below the food
poverty line does not enjoy liberty in the same practical sense as a billionaire does.
Poverty restricts a person’s ability to make real choices about education, health,
work, and participation in public life. So although equal liberties may exist formally,
their real value is undermined by severe deprivation.
Second principle, part one: Fair equality of opportunity
Rawls’ second principle begins with fair equality of opportunity. This means that
positions of advantage should not merely be open in theory. People with similar
talent and willingness to work should have genuinely fair chances to succeed,
regardless of the social class into which they are born.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
