.

Philosophy 162F Lecture 11 Notes Social and Economic Justice Robert Nozick Puts a challenge forth that if one wants to administrate justice based on the nature of a pattern, then one must interfere with individual rights, and these rights are inviolable (unless they are historically illegitimate. John Rawls Rawls acknowledges that justice, as he sees it, requires interference. What Rawls denies are that rights are necessarily inviolate. Basic rights are inviolate to the extent that they can be maximally accessed without restricting the access of others. (Liberty Principle) Other rights are distributed in such a way that we are all better off and we all have a real chance to gain these rights. (Difference Principle) Rawls, in effect, is arguing that one cannot claim the rights to resources in a way that is independent of justice. There are two types of reasons that Rawls’ two principles might provide to argue in favour of the redistribution of resources or against the full use of one’s resources: Type I: A certain distribution or expenditure of resources violates the Liberty Principle. E.g., the democratic process is somehow subverted by the concentration of wealth. Type II: A certain distribution or expenditure of resources violates the difference principle. E.g., the stratification of income influences the chance that people have to attain certain positions.  A Problem for Rawls? As we saw in our in-class assignment, when people sit down to determine what is fair, this doesn’t provide one unique set of rules. What a group produces under the veil of ignorance can be influenced by their goals, the challenges that they identify for the area they are deciding and their unchallenged background assumptions. (Remember that even people who allowed full access to personal noted still demanded that no one wear a hat to the test in order to prevent cheating.) It’s not immediately clear if this is a problem for Rawls, a challenge to be overcome in order to improve his theory, or a strength of his theory.  Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman Friedman adopts the Nozick approach wholeheartedly. For Friedman, the freedom with very little restriction seems to be the only real moral good. "[The liberal] may welcome the fact that a free society in fact tends toward greater material equality than any other yet tried. But he will regard this as a desirable by-product of a free society, not its major justification." (Pg. 664) It is worth noting that if Friedman uses the term "free society" to mean any society that values individual freedom, then his claim that a free society tends towards greater material equality than any other yet tried, then his statement is not one limited to capitalism. On the other hand, if he intended to refer to free market societies, then his claim is historically false. Friedman is an avowed Christian, so one imagines that he holds a broader personal moral belief. Friedman is, perhaps, advocating a moral analysis independent of those that stem from personal ethics or morality that otherwise applies to other spheres of life. Friedman does not defend capitalism on the grounds that it is a meritocracy. People have the right to succeed on the basis of gift from their parents. People have the right to succeed based on pure chance alone. Friedman’s Positive Argument for Capitalism Once someone has something, you can’t take it away. Robinson Crusoe/Twenty Dollar Bill thought experiment. Supposed to demonstrate that force is never justified in taking away resources. Friedman claims that people are much more likely to be offended when someone succeeds over them through merit than through chance. He draws from this the conclusion that people are more amenable to success through chance than through merit. Problems with Friedman He, like Nozick, assume that ownership is a simple thing. In reality, we can accomplish the tasks required for our economy only through a complex web of social relationships. Friedman compares redistribution of resources by a society to the forced redistribution of resources by individuals. There are important differences between these two cases. It might be possible to claim, as perhaps Rawls does, that because of the complex social organization that is required in order to have a market, an individual that profits through the market cannot have sole claim to their earnings. Such an objection addresses Nozick’s worry about the historicity of pattern-based distributive justice theories. One could argue that Nozick is not taking an important part of the history of exchange into account. Can Capitalism Save Itself? Some Ruminations of the Fate of Capitalism, Leo Groarke Weaknesses of Capitalism The focus on consumption leads to attitudes that are harmful to the environment and the long-term interests of people in general. This is exacerbated by the natural action of capitalism to spread throughout all possible markets. There is an incentive to deceive. Only perceived inefficiencies are open to corrections. This is exacerbated by the ability of economic resources to control sources of information. The concentration of wealth that is a natural part of capitalism will increase the severity of the problems of capitalism. Offenders of the way the market should work will gain more resources with which to abet their deeds. Mitigated Capitalism Regulation in order to ensure the transparency and the nature of competition in the market. Vigilant attempts to separate public and private interests. Many of these regulations are already in place, but they must be strengthened and made independent of the particular interests of legislators.   Home.

.