.

Philosophy 162F Lecture 10 Notes Social and Economic Justice Justice is thought to reside in principles of desert or entitlement. Justice also includes specific rules derived from these principles. Some economists claim that prices and salaries set by the operation of the free market are beyond the concern of justice. The results of the free market in this respect are unfortunate, but they are beyond moral analysis. These results are simply the end product of the natural process of the market. Yet if grossly unfair prices and salaries are the natural results of the free market, then why have a free market at all? One needn’t adopt the free market for all goods. Adam Smith felt that there should be some restrictions on certain foodstuffs to ensure that workers could eat. Distributive justice consists of the principles and rules of justice that govern the proper distribution of social benefits and burdens. Broad Categories of Distributive Justice Egalitarian Theory Egalitarian theorists believe that individual differences are morally insignificant for the purposes of distributive justice. Egalitarian theory can be quite subtle. There may be some basis for unequal distribution of some goods while others are to be distributed equally. A radical egalitarian theory calls for equality in all things. A qualified egalitarian theory calls for a graded approach to equality. John Rawls’ theory of distributive justice is a qualified egalitarian theory arising from Kantian ethics. Libertarian Theory Libertarian theories place priority on individual rights and liberties when making decisions of distributive justice. Libertarian theorists tend not to care about the outcome of economic transactions. Rather they care about the way in which economic outcomes are achieved. Robert Nozick’s theory of distributive justice is a libertarian theory. Communitarian Theory Communitarian theories claim that the nature of a community determines the nature of justice. It is thus misguided to look at the nature of individuals in order to come up with a theory of justice. The community may be right in imposing a decision against an individual. This is antithetical to the vision of Rawls and Nozick. Feinberg on Distributive Justice  Joel Feinberg has characterized theories of distributive justice based on the following calculation: A's share of P/B's share of P = A's possession of Q/B's possession of P Here A and B are any two individuals, P is some economic good, and Q is some quality. If Q = "humanity", then we have a very basic egalitarian theory. If Q = "need", then the theory will not account for much of distribution. If Q = "merit", then we have two options: "Merit" = "the skills someone possesses". In this case, we have to recognize that not everyone gets the ability to develop their skills and not everyone has the same inborn skills. "Merit = "the achievements of an individual". More so than skills, achievement depends on factors beyond individual control. If Q = "contribution to the economy", then we have the problem of finding some way to measure this contribution. Feinberg thinks that there is no non-arbitrary way to make this measurement. Contribution will be effected by luck as much as skills or achievements. If Q = "effort", this idea seems to fit well with our intuitions of contributions. Yet even here, there are circumstances that we might identify that prevent individuals acquiring the motivation to put effort into their work. John Rawls An Egalitarian Theory of Justice, pp. 638-646. Rawls discusses justice as it is part of social practices and institutions. He does not seek to address particular actions of particular persons. A set of principles is required for choosing among the various social arrangements which determine [the] division of advantages [when settling conflicts of distribution] and for underwriting an agreement on the proper distributive shares. These principles are the principles of social justice: they provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society and they define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation… [Rawls, pg. 639.] Justice is a virtue of social practices and institutions. It is not the only virtue of social practices and institutions and it is only a part of a good society. It may be the case that there arise inequalities that are just, but not still right. Justice as fairness The origin of principles of justice must be what rational people see as fair to all. Rawls speaks of an original position. This is not an actual state of affairs or historical position. The original position is the fundamental framework underlying the idea of interpersonal relationships. Judging from the original position does not take into account the special circumstances of the judge that might make them more likely to flourish under a certain circumstance. One makes a judgment from the original position behind the veil of ignorance. The rational person (according to Rawls): They are aware (more or less) of their own interest. They can determine the likely outcomes of adopting social practices. They can follow the rules they decide upon. They can resist temptations of immediate gain for other benefits. They can tolerate the differences of other people. Rawls presents two principles that are part of justice and show the role of fairness as a basis for justice: (pg. 641) The Liberty Principle Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for all. The Difference Principle Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attatched to positions and offices open to all. The basic liberties: Political liberty (the right to vote and be eligible for public office) Freedom of speech and assembly Liberty of conscience and freedom of thought Freedom of the person along with the right to hold personal property Freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure The place for inequality Basic rights can never be compromised. Other rights can be unequal. The burden of proof is always on the person who would introduce or maintain inequality. Challenge: Inequalities are problematic. Response: These inequalities may increase liberties overall. Only certain kinds of inequalities can be accepted. If inequalities are not of benefit to everyone, then they cannot be upheld. Because the free market does not address issues of justice, offices of government must be put in place to rectify the harm done to justice by the free market when it occurs. Robert Nozick The Entitlement Theory, pp. 646-650. But don’t I have a say if you want to take something away from me? Principle of justice in acquisition: how goods may be acquired from nature Principle of justice in transfer: voluntary exchange of goods. From this, we can derive a general principle of justice in holdings. The Principle of Justice in Holdings (pg. 647)  A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) application of 1 and 2. As the world isn’t perfect, we may need to rectify past wrongs because of improper acquisition and transfer. However, the principle of justice in holdings is otherwise correct. Two types of theories of distributive justice: Historical theories Claim that the justice of a distribution of resources arises from the history of how the individual of the distribution came to their holdings. Current time-slice theories Claim that the justice of a distribution is determined by the nature of the distribution at a given time. Two distributions of the same pattern are equally just. In accounts of justice in other areas, it seems that these are historical theories rather than time slice theories. We don’t care how may people are in jail, just whether or not they committed the crimes that got them sentenced to jail and whether or not the sentences fit their particular crimes. Wilt Chamberlain Example Start with an arbitrary distribution, D1 (the best distribution according to any given theory of justice). Suppose Wilt Chamberlain is in great demand as a basketball player. Chamberlain signs a one-year contract according to which he will receive twenty-five cents from each ticket of admission to every game in which he plays. If one million people see his games, then Chamberlain will have $250,000 as his proceeds for the year. This is much more that the average salary of his country. Analyzing the Wilt Chamberlain Example: There are two questions that arise: Is chamberlain entitled to his $250,000? Is the new distribution, D2, just or unjust? People who came to see Chamberlain did so of their own free will. They chose to spend their money to see him. D1 was a just distribution. The individuals of distribution D1 voluntarily moved to distribution D2. "The general point illustrated by the Wilt Chamberlain example is that no end-state principle or distributional patterned principle of justice can be continually realized without continuous interference with people’s lives." (pg. 649) From the point of view of entitlement, redistribution is a violation of rights.   Home.

.