Transcript Document 7513127

Justice as Fairness
John Rawls
John Rawls believes
that a just system of
distribution should be
based on considerations
of equal rights and
principles of fairness. He
argues that ‘desert’ is
not a relevant
consideration in
distributive justice.
Content
Distributive justice
Justice as fairness
Desert
Utilitarianism
Original position
Principles of justice
Lexical priority
Difference principle
Redistribution
Criticisms
Distributive justice
Distributive justice is concerned with the
distribution of the benefits and burdens
of economic activity among individuals
in a society.
It refers to the proper allocation of wealth,
power, material goods, opportunities,
etc. among members of society.
Distributive justice
In one system of distribution, people may
be rewarded according to the ‘effort’
they make. In another system, they may
be rewarded according to the value of
their ‘contribution’ to society.
Distribution can also be based on
considerations such as ‘need’, ‘right’,
‘merit’ or ‘achievement’.
Distributive justice
For example, distribution of social welfare
payments is often based on ‘need’;
distribution of old age allowance is
often based on ‘right’; distribution of
awards is often based on ‘merit’; and
distribution of bonuses is often based
on ‘achievement’.
Distributive justice
When dealing with a distributive problem,
such as choosing a principle to allocate
a sum of money, it is common for
people to appeal to a number of
different concerns: that the money
should go to the person who deserves it
as a reward, or to those who need it
most, or that it should be divided
equally.
Distributive justice
Some principles of distributive justice:
[1] Principles of desert: people should get
what they deserve
[2] Principles of equality: people should
be treated equally
[3] Principles of need: people should get
what they need
Distributive justice
Principles of desert say that people ought
to get what they deserve. People should
be rewarded in proportion to how hard
they work, or how much risk they bear
in undertaking a given line of work, or
how well they satisfy their customers.
Distributive justice
Principles of equality say that people
should be treated equally – providing
equal opportunity, ensuring equal pay
for equal work, and so on – or that
people should have equal shares of
whatever is being distributed.
Distributive justice
Principles of need define a class of needs,
then say a society is just only if such
needs are met, so far as meeting them is
humanly possible.
Distributive justice
Traditionally, distribution is viewed as
‘just’ if it is based on ‘desert’; e.g.
someone who works deserves more
income than someone who chooses not
to work; someone who works harder
deserves a higher salary; someone who
saves deserves more wealth than
someone who chooses not to save, etc.
Distributive justice
Some modern philosophers and social
thinkers, however, argue that the notion
of ‘distributive justice’ must also
incorporate other considerations such
as equality and fairness.
Justice as fairness
According to John Rawls, a society is a
cooperative venture between free and
equal persons for the purpose of mutual
advantage.
Justice, in Rawls’s view, refers to the
proper distribution of the benefits and
burdens of social cooperation.
Justice as fairness
The individual members of society share
common interests, but there is also
conflict of interests among them.
Income, wealth and opportunities are
scarce relative to people’s need and
wants, so members of a society have
conflicting interests over economic
distribution.
Justice as fairness
Are there principles of justice to
determine the right distribution on
which all reasonable citizens could
agree?
Can society be organized around fair
principles of cooperation in a way that
people would accept?
Justice as fairness
‘Justice as fairness’ is Rawls’s theory of
justice for a liberal society.
The aim of a theory of justice is to
propose principles to guide political and
social institutions in such a way that
each individual receives a fair share of
social benefits and burdens.
Justice as fairness
The principles of justice are principles
that regulate what Rawls calls the ‘basic
structure of society’, i.e. the way in
which the major social institutions
distribute rights and duties and
determine the division of advantages
from social cooperation.
Justice as fairness
In other words, Rawls’s theory answers
the question: How should a society’s
main institutions be ordered?
He uses the example of two persons
sharing a piece of cake to demonstrate
how individuals can reach agreement on
principles of fair distribution:
Justice as fairness
Suppose there is one piece of cake that
two persons want to eat. They equally
desire to eat the cake and each wants
the biggest piece possible. To deal with
this dilemma, both agree that one will
cut the cake while the other will choose
one of the two pieces. The consensus
derived guarantees that the cake will be
shared fairly, equating ‘justice’ with
‘fairness’.
Desert
According to principles of desert, people
freely apply their abilities and talents, in
varying degrees, to socially productive
work.
As such, people come to deserve varying
levels of income by providing goods
and services desired by others.
Desert
Distributive systems are just insofar as
they distribute incomes according to the
different levels earned or deserved by
the individuals in the society for their
productive labors, efforts, or
contributions.
Desert
For Rawls, however, ‘desert’ is not a
relevant consideration in distributive
justice.
Merit, in particular, should not be used as
the basis for distribution of income,
because it is largely the result of ‘luck’,
‘chance factors’ or the ‘natural lottery’
(i.e. factors over which people have little
or no control).
Desert
According to Rawls, some people are
‘luckier’ than others. They have talents
and abilities that others do not have
because of the ‘natural lottery’ (i.e.
chance factors related to heredity,
family and environment).
In Rawls’s view, no one really deserves
the benefits arising from his or her
abilities, talents, families, etc.
Desert
Some people believe that natural talent
deserves financial reward. Rawls
disagrees.
Rawls believes that mere luck should not
determine the distribution of wealth,
resources and opportunities in society.
Desert
Is it unfair that Tiger Woods earns a much
higher income than most people
because of his natural talent in golf?
Desert
Rawls argues that people do not deserve
to reap the rewards of their talents.
Tiger Woods earns millions of dollars
because he is good at golf. But he does
not really deserve it. He was just lucky
that, by some combination of heredity
and environment, he ended up with
superior skills.
Desert
Rawls believes that individuals do not
morally deserve benefits that stem from
inequalities of talent.
Our talents, and even our character, are
products of nature and nurture (genes
and environment) for which we can
claim no credit.
Desert
For Rawls, no one deserves their abilities,
talents or other fortunate circumstances.
Thus, he feels justified in excluding any
principle of desert from distributive
justice.
Desert
Rawls’s goal is to create a just society in
which ‘luck’ plays a minimal role in the
distribution of benefits, incomes and
resources.
His primary concern is to establish a
system of distributive justice that will
bring the greatest benefits to the least
advantaged members of society.
Desert
For Rawls, inequality resulting from luck
or good fortune is unjust unless it
benefits those less fortunate,
particularly the least advantaged
members of society.
He goes on to argue that one of the tasks
of governments is to remedy the
unfairness of the natural lottery.
Utilitarianism
Rawls rejects utilitarianism. Utilitarians, in
his view, are concerned only with
maximizing overall benefits. They ignore
problems of inequalities and pay little
attention to the plight of the least
advantaged members of society.
Utilitarianism
Rawls’s central complaint, however, is
that utilitarianism allows some people’s
interests to be sacrificed if that would
give rise to greater benefits for others.
Utilitarians propose that we ought to
maximize the total sum of net benefits,
rather than attend to the interests of
each considered separately.
Utilitarianism
There would appear to be ways of
maximizing social utility overall that do
an injustice to particular individuals.
Think of the Roman practice of throwing
people to the lions for the enjoyment of
all those in the Colosseum.
Utilitarianism
While utilitarianism may try to justify
infringements upon the rights of some
individuals if these infringements
produce a greater happiness for a larger
number of other individuals, the theory
of justice as fairness denies that
infringements upon the basic rights of
individuals can ever be morally justified.
Utilitarianism
As Rawls remarks, utilitarianism could
theoretically justify slavery, but no
rational self-interested person could
accept that form of inequality, if he
himself might be among the slaves.
Original position
One of the main reasons why people join
together to form a society is that they
want to increase the amount of ‘primary
goods’ available for all.
Rawls defines primary goods as ‘things
that every rational man is presumed to
want’. These include rights and liberties,
powers and opportunities, income and
wealth, and self-respect.
Original position
Rawls argues that in a just society, the
authority of political institutions should
be based on a hypothetical ‘social
contract’ made between free and equal
individuals.
He also believes that a system of fair
distribution should be the result of the
social contract.
Original position
In coming together to form a society
people must agree on the principles that
govern social and political institutions.
The ‘social contract’ is a thought
experiment which involves a group of
imagined contractors trying to reach
agreement of principles of justice.
Original position
Rawls postulates that the imagined
contractors are rational and selfinterested – they are interested in
securing the maximum amount of
primary goods for themselves.
Original position
But, at the same time, the contractors are
mutually disinterested, i.e. they are
interested purely in their own fortune,
not that of others.
They are not ‘envious’ of others; they will
not be made happy or unhappy by either
the good or the bad fortune of other
persons.
Original position
Rawls supposes that people’s views of
justice are often biased, in part, by their
own particular interests.
For example, some rich people may be
strongly opposed to taxation, while
some poor people will want the rich to
be taxed more than they are at present,
in order to increase welfare benefits.
Original position
Rawls’s idea is that, while justice requires
impartiality, impartiality can be modeled
by assuming ignorance. This opens the
way for a hypothetical social contract.
Original position
Rawls imagines people considering
together what basic principles they
should agree upon for the ordering of
social institutions.
He asks us to think of these persons as
being in an ‘original position’, deprived
of attributes that would introduce bias
into their thought. He calls this a ‘veil of
ignorance’.
Original position
Original position: A purely hypothetical
situation in which one is placed behind
a veil of ignorance and is asked to
formulate basic principles of justice.
Original position
Veil of ignorance: The contractors are
ignorant of any features which
distinguish them from their fellow
contractors. They are unaware of their
place, class position or social status
within society.
Original position
Rawls argues that ignorance of these
details about oneself will lead to the
selection of principles that are fair to all.
If an individual does not know his or her
social position relative to others, he or
she is likely to prefer a scheme of
justice that treats everyone fairly.
Original position
Thus, the veil of ignorance precludes the
tendency to favor principles that serve
particular interests by excluding
knowledge of particular interests.
It focuses contractors to look at society
not from their own social position, but
objectively and impartially.
Original position
As Rawls himself puts it, the purpose of
the veil of ignorance is to ensure “that
no one is advantaged or disadvantaged
in the choice of principles by the
outcome of natural chance or the
contingency of social circumstances…
Original position
Since all are similarly situated and no one
is able to design principles to favor his
particular condition, the principles of
justice are the result of a fair agreement
or bargain.”
Original position
Rawls maintains that since every
contractor is aware of the possibility
that he or she might be among the least
advantaged, he or she will choose
principles that aim at the greatest
possible benefit for everyone and
especially for the least advantaged.
Principles of justice
According to Rawls, the two principles of
justice which would be agreed to by
rational and mutually disinterested
individuals in the ‘original position’ are:
[1] Each person is to have an equal right
to the most extensive total system of
equal basic liberties compatible with a
similar system of liberty for all.
(‘principle of equal liberty’)
Principles of justice
[2] Social and economic inequalities are
to be arranged so that they are both:
[a] to the greatest benefit of the least
advantaged (‘difference principle’); and
[b] attached to offices and positions open
to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity. (‘principle of fair equality of
opportunity’)
Principles of justice
The first principle (the principle of equal
liberty) gives people a wide variety of
rights and freedoms, including speech,
press, religion, assembly and, more
generally, the freedom to do as they
please as long as they do not interfere
with the rights of others.
Principles of justice
The ‘principle of fair equality of
opportunity’ [2b], requires that citizens
with similar skills, abilities and
motivation should have equal access to
educational and economic opportunities,
regardless of their family background,
race, sex, religion, etc.
Principles of justice
A distinction can be made between
‘formal equality of opportunity’ and ‘fair
equality of opportunity’.
‘Formal equality of opportunity’ simply
means nondiscrimination, i.e. no unfair
or unequal opportunity of one individual
over another.
Principles of justice
Basically, formal equality of opportunity is
characterized by:
[1] equal access to educational or
employment opportunities;
[2] open and fair competition; and
[3] applying the same standard to
everyone in the assessment or selection
process.
Principles of justice
However, formal equality of opportunity
alone does not necessarily ensure a fair
outcome for everyone.
For example, children of wealthy and wellconnected parents often have an unfair
advantage over children from poor
families.
Principles of justice
For this reason, Rawls believes that
formal equality of opportunity is not
enough.
He advocates ‘fair equality of opportunity’
which entails positive measures to
remedy inequalities and to ensure that
everyone who has the same native
talent and ambition can have the same
prospects of success in competitions.
Principles of justice
The ‘difference principle’ [2a] states that
inequality cannot be justified unless it
benefits the least advantaged members
of society.
The least advantaged are likely to include
people born into relatively poor families,
people with least natural talent and
people with the worst lifetime luck.
Principles of justice
It implies that laws and policies have to be
enforced to raise the position of the
least advantaged in society.
Thus, in a just society, a fair amount of
resources should be redistributed to
help the poorest members.
Lexical priority
According to Rawls, the first principle of
justice (the principle of equal liberty) is
lexically prior to the second principle, in
that for justice to be attained the first
principle of justice must be satisfied
before the second principle can be
satisfied.
Lexical priority
Rawls explains that the lexical or logical
priority of the first principle of justice
over the second principle implies that
violations of basic rights cannot be
justified by arguing that such violations
may produce economic or social
advantages.
Lexical priority
Within the second principle, ‘fair equality
of opportunity’ [2b] takes priority over
the ‘difference principle’ [2a].
To sum up, maximum equal basic liberties
and fair equality of opportunity must be
secured before implementing policies to
raise the living standards of the poor.
Lexical priority
What this means, for Rawls, is that, once
we have reached a certain level of wellbeing, considerations of liberty should
have absolute priority over matters of
economic well-being.
Thus, according to this view, we cannot
sacrifice liberty for the sake of anything
else.
Difference principle
Rawlsian contractors would initially agree
to equal division of all primary goods.
However, if an inequality benefits
everyone compared to equality, it is
rational to permit it – they would accept
inequalities that benefit everyone
compared to equal division.
Difference principle
In other words, a rational, self-interested
Rawlsian contractor in the original
position will prefer inequality to equality
if and only if inequality is more
advantageous to him or her than
inequality, in terms of enjoyment of
primary goods.
Difference principle
Rawls himself is aware that a system
aimed at ‘strict equality’ in income and
wealth (i.e. equal share for everyone)
might do away with incentives of a
market economy, and would, in all
probability, result in an extremely low
level of wealth for all.
Difference principle
Rawls assumes that if people with scarce
marketable skills or talents are paid
incentives (e.g. a higher salary), they
would choose more productive jobs and
work harder – and so produce more –
than they might for average pay.
Difference principle
It is easy to see why according to the
difference principle, a doctor should be
allowed to get a higher income than an
ordinary office worker.
If this is not the case, then no one will
take the time and effort to study
medicine, and health care will be in
short supply. Everyone in society will be
worse off as a result.
Difference principle
The inequality between a doctor’s salary
and a clerk’s is only acceptable if this is
the only way to encourage the training
of sufficient numbers of doctors,
preventing an unacceptable decline in
the availability of medical care (which
would therefore disadvantage
everyone).
Difference principle
Rawls does not think that every person
should have the same level of material
goods and services.
The difference principle allows inequality
to exist so long as it has the effect that
the least advantaged in society are
materially better off than they would be
under strict equality.
Difference principle
Rawls suggests that every rational person
should agree with the ‘maximin’ rule:
the idea that a fair system of distribution
must maximize the primary goods
enjoyed by the least favored class.
Difference principle
A rational contractor in the original
position should consider the possibility
the he or she might be in the minimal
(i.e. least advantaged) position, and so
he or she should ensure the maximum
benefit for it.
Difference principle
Rawls’s ‘general conception of justice’:
Primary goods are to be distributed
equally, unless an unequal distribution
of any or all of these goods is to
everyone’s advantage.
In other words, inequality in distribution is
just, if and only if, it benefits everyone,
especially the least advantaged.
Difference principle
Question: Rawls’s maximin rule depends
on the assumption that it is rational and
prudent to prepare for the worst. But
why is it necessarily rational to play safe
rather than gamble a little, given the
good chance that one may not be
among the least fortunate?
Redistribution
It seems that people generally agree with
Rawls’s first principle of justice (the
principle of equal liberty).
However, the second principle – the
‘difference principle’ in particular – is
controversial because it entails the
redistribution of income, resources, and
opportunities.
Redistribution
The market does not itself satisfy Rawls’s
principles of justice. The distribution of
wealth in a free market economy has no
connection with social justice.
To provide for everyone’s basic needs,
and to satisfy the difference principle,
government intervention and
redistribution of wealth are required.
Redistribution
For Rawls, a fair and just society is one in
which the poor can share the fruits of
prosperity.
He proposes that wealth and resources be
redistributed more evenly through
progressive taxation, social welfare, a
legal minimum wage, equal opportunity
policy, public provision of education
and health care, etc.
Redistribution
As an egalitarian, Rawls believes that a
government that allows substantial
differences in wealth is unjust and
immoral.
The existing wealth gap, in his view, can
be closed through taxation. The money
collected by taxation can be used to
benefit those who have less.
Redistribution
Question: Imagine you are the owner of a
business. The government has the right
to tax away all of your profits unless you
reinvest those profits to create jobs for
the working class. If you keep the
money in your bank account without
making any new investment, the
government will tax away that sum of
money. Do you think this is fair?
Criticisms
A basic assumption of Rawls’s theory of
justice is that the government has the
right to reallocate income, resources
and opportunities.
It implies that some government
bureaucrats will be able to take
possession of private wealth and
resources and redistribute them among
all members of society.
Criticisms
A fundamental objection to this is that
this egalitarian policy of redistribution
ignores the crucial question of how
people have come to differ in wealth.
If people earned their money by legitimate
mean – working hard, taking risks, etc. –
then they deserve what they have.
Criticisms
To take people’s money from them in
order to benefit those who have made
wrong choices, were afraid of taking
risks, or lost in a fair competition is
unjust because it takes from people
what they deserve and uses it to benefit
those who do not deserve it.
Criticisms
Advocates of desert-based principles of
justice may argue that some people
deserve a higher level of material goods
because of their hard work and
contribution even if their unequal
rewards do not help to improve the
position of the least advantaged.
Criticisms
The difference principle does not ask why
someone is badly off. Perhaps it is his
own fault.
For example, someone who smokes five
packs of cigarettes a day gets lung
cancer at 35 and loses his ability to
work as a result. How can it be a
requirement of justice to tax others to
help him?
Criticisms
The purpose of redistribution is to make
up for bad luck. It requires that the more
‘fortunate’ (e.g. more talented, more
wealthy, etc.) members of society be
taxed in a manner that maximally
benefits the less ‘fortunate’.
Will redistribution discourage people from
working hard because their productive
labor is not adequately rewarded?
Criticisms
Redistribution policies may not be fair to
some members of society.
A single mother who manages to improve
her lot through hard work, thrift, and
discipline may find her somewhat
greater resources subject to
redistribution to another single mother
who is addicted to drugs and refuses to
work.
Criticisms
Do you think that people who choose to
work harder to earn a higher income
should be required to subsidize those
who choose to have more leisure? What
role is there for individual responsibility
in an account of justice?
Criticisms
If the government takes money from the
rich and gives it to the poor, it may have
achieved greater equality, but not
greater justice.
People who disagree with Rawls may
argue that redistribution entails
violation of freedom and property rights.
It may also cause inefficiency and
diminish incentives to work and save.
Criticisms
Why should we entrust government
officials with the power to redistribute
wealth?
If someone steals money from the rich
and gives it to his poor neighbors, he
will be arrested and punished, why
should we allow the government to rob
Peter to pay Paul?
Criticisms
Rawls seems to think that there is no
necessary connection between how
goods are produced and how they are
distributed.
Is there any relationship between how
wealth is created and how it should be
distributed?
Criticisms
What role should the government play in
the distribution of income and
resources?
Do you think a just society can be
established through redistribution of
income and resources? Why or why
not?