2. John Rawls John Rawls believes that a just system of distribution should be based on considerations of equality of rights and principles of fairness. He argues that ‘desert’ is not a relevant consideration in distributive justice.

3. In this lecture…  Distributive justice  Justice as fairness  Desert  Utilitarianism  Original position  Principles of justice  Lexical priority  The difference principle  Redistribution  Criticisms

4. 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.

5. 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 other considerations such as ‘need’, ‘right’, ‘merit’ or ‘achievement.’

6. 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 in a contest is often based on ‘merit’; and distribution of bonuses is often based on ‘achievement.’

7. 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 up equally.

8. Distributive justice  Accordingly, we have the following 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

9. Distributive justice  Principles of desert say that people should get what they deserve. People should be rewarded in proportion to how hard they work, or how much risk they are willing to bear, or how well they satisfy their customers, and so on.

10. 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 everyone should get an equal share of whatever is being distributed.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Distributive justice  Some modern philosophers and social thinkers, however, proposed that justice in distribution must also incorporate other considerations, such as equality, fairness and need.  Principles of equality, fairness and need are important considerations in John Rawls’ theory of distributive justice.

14. Justice as fairness  According to Rawls, society is a cooperative venture between free and equal persons for the purpose of mutual advantage.  Justice, in Rawls’ view, refers to the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation.

15. Justice as fairness  Members of a society share common interests, but there is also conflict of interests among them.  Benefits (e.g. income, wealth, resources, and opportunities) are scarce relative to people’s needs and wants, so members of a society have conflicting interests over economic distribution.

16. 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 everyone would accept?

17. Justice as fairness  ‘Justice as fairness’ is Rawls’ theory of justice for a liberal society.  The aim of a theory of justice, in his view, is to design principles to guide economic, social and political institutions in such a way that each individual can get a fair share of social benefits and burdens.

18. Justice as fairness  Rawls’ theory answers the question: How should a society’s main institutions be ordered on the basis of principles of just distribution?  He uses the example of two persons sharing a piece of cake to demonstrate how individuals can reach agreement on rules of fair distribution:

19. Justice as fairness  Suppose there is a 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. This arrangement guarantees that the cake can be shared fairly between them.

20. Desert  According to principles of desert, people freely apply their abilities, talents and effort, in varying degrees, to socially productive work.  As such, people come to deserve varying levels of income (and/or other benefits) by providing goods and services desired by others.

21. Desert  A system of distribution is just insofar as incomes and other benefits are rewarded or distributed according to the different levels earned or deserved by the individuals for their productive labors, efforts, or contributions.

22. Desert  For Rawls, however, ‘desert’ is not a relevant consideration in distributive justice.  Individual merit, in particular, should not be used as the basis for distribution of income and other benefits. Why?

23. Desert  Because, in Rawls’ view, individual merit is largely the result of ‘luck’, or the ‘natural lottery’ (i.e. chance factors over which people have little or no control).

24. 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).  As such, no one really deserves the benefits arising from their talents, abilities, families, etc.

25. 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.

26. Desert  Is it unfair that Tiger Woods earns a much higher income than most people because of his natural talent in golf?

27. 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 is just lucky that, by some combination of heredity (i.e. genes) and environment, he ends up with superior skills.

28. Desert  Rawls believes that individuals do not morally deserve benefits that arise from inequalities of talent.  Our talents, and even our personalities, are products of nature and nurture (genes and environment) for which we can claim no credit.

29. Desert  For Rawls, no one deserves their abilities, talents or other fortunate circumstances.  Thus, he feels justified in excluding any principles of desert from distributive justice.

30. Desert  Rawls’ 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 (i.e. the unluckiest ones).

31. Desert  For Rawls, inequality resulting from luck or good fortune is unjust unless it benefits the rest of society, especially the least fortunate members of society.  As we shall see, Rawls argues that one of the tasks of governments is to correct or remedy the unfairness of the natural lottery.

32.  Rawls rejects utilitarian reasoning. 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.

33.  Rawls’ main complaint, however, is that utilitarianism allows some people’s rights to be sacrificed if that would bring greater benefits to others.  Utilitarians propose that we ought to maximize the total sum of net benefits, rather than attend to the rights of each considered separately.

34.  There are ways of maximizing social utility overall that involve injustice to particular individuals.  Think, for example, of the Roman practice of throwing people to the lions for the entertainment of all those in the Colosseum.

35.  While utilitarianism may try to justify infringements upon the rights of particular individuals on the grounds that doing so would bring greater happiness for others, Rawls claims that infringements upon the rights of individuals can never be morally justified.

36.  As Rawls remarks, utilitarianism could theoretically justify slavery, but no rational person would support the institution of slavery, if there is the possibility that he himself might be among the slaves.

37.  Rawls suggests that the main reason people join together to form a society is that they want to increase the amount of ‘primary goods’ available for all.  ‘Primary goods’ can be defined as ‘things that every rational man is presumed to want.’ These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, income and wealth, as well as respect.

38.  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.  A system of fair distribution should also be set up on the basis of the social contract.

39.  Members of a society try to agree on the principles that govern social and political institutions.  The ‘original position’ can be seen as a thought experiment which involves a group of imagined contractors (i.e. citizens or their representatives) attempting to reach agreement on principles of just institutions.

40.  Rawls postulates that the imagined contractors are rational and self- interested – everyone is interested in securing the maximum amount of primary goods for themselves (or those whom they represent).

41.  Rawls supposes that people’s views of justice are often biased, in part, by their own particular interests.  For example, rich people strongly opposed to heavy taxation, while poor people are in favor of heavy taxation as a means to finance the provision of social welfare and other public services.

42.  According to Rawls, for people to reach agreement on principles of just institutions, personal bias has to be eliminated.  In his view, impartiality can be modeled by assuming ‘ignorance’. This opens the way for a hypothetical social contract.

43.  Rawls imagines people getting together to decide what basic principles they should agree upon for the ordering of social institutions.  Contractors trying to reach agreement on the terms of the social contract must be placed in an ‘original position’, a situation in which decision-making is not affected by personal bias.

44.  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.

45.  Veil of ignorance: The contractors are ignorant of any features which distinguish them from their fellow contractors. That is, they are unaware of their place, class position or social status within society relative to others.

46.  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 principles that treat everyone fairly.

47.  Rawls himself does not explain how we can put contractors behind a veil of ignorance. But from a social scientific point of view, this can be accomplished, for example, through individual profiling, carefully designed questionnaires, screening of responses, and others tools of data analysis that can used to eliminate bias.

48.  According to Rawls, since every contractor, having been placed behind a veil of ignore, cannot rule out 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, especially the least fortunate.

49.  Rawls believes that the principles that would most likely be favored by all rational contractors in the ‘original position’ are: 1.Principle of equal liberty: 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.

50. 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’)

51.  The ‘principle of equal liberty’ [1] 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.

52.  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.

53.  A distinction can be made between ‘formal equality of opportunity’ and ‘fair equality of opportunity’.  ‘Formal equality of opportunity’ simply means nondiscrimination, i.e. open competition for educational or employment opportunities.

54.  However, formal equality of opportunity alone does not necessarily ensure a fair outcome for everyone.  For example, children of wealthy and ‘well-connected’ parents often have an unfair advantage over children from poor families.

55.  Rawls believes that formal equality of opportunity is not enough. He advocates the principle of ‘fair equality of opportunity’ which necessitates 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.

56.  The ‘difference principle’ [2a] states that inequality cannot be justified unless it benefits the least advantaged members of society.  The least advantaged include people born into relatively poor families, people with least natural talent and people with the worst lifetime luck.

57.  An implication of the difference principle is that laws and policies must be enforced to raise the position of the least advantaged in society.  Thus, in a just society, a fair amount of wealth and resources should be redistributed to help the poorest or unluckiest citizens.

58.  According to Rawls, the first principle of justice (the principle of equal liberty) is lexically (i.e. logically) 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.

59.  Rawls explains that the lexical priority of the first principle over the second principle implies that violations of basic rights cannot be justified by arguing that such violations may produce economic advantages.

60.  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 through redistribution.

61.  What this means is that, once we have reached a certain level of well-being, considerations of liberty should have absolute priority over matters of economic well-being.  In short, we cannot sacrifice liberty for the sake of anything else.

62.  Suppose contractors in the original position initially agreed to an equal division of primary goods for all. If, however, an inequality in distribution benefits everyone compared to giving everyone an equal share, it is rational to permit it – rational contractors should accept inequalities that benefit everyone compared to equal division.

63.  In other words, rational contractors in the original position would prefer inequality to equality if and only if inequality is more advantageous to them (and those whom they represent) than inequality, in terms of enjoyment of primary goods.

64.  Rawls himself is aware that a system aimed at ‘strict equality’ in income and wealth (i.e. an equal share for everyone) might do away with incentives of a free market economy, and would, in all probability, result in an extremely low level of wealth for all.

65.  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 than they might for an average pay.

66.  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 that 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.

67.  The inequality between a doctor’s salary and a clerk’s is only acceptable if that 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 be bad for everyone).

68.  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.

69.  Rawls suggests that every rational person should agree with the ‘maximin rule’: the idea that a fair system of distribution must ensure the maximization of primary goods for the least advantaged members of society.

70.  A rational contractor in the original position would have to consider the possibility that he or she might be in the ‘minimal’ (i.e. least advantaged) position, and so he or she should prefer a system of distribution that guarantees the maximum benefit for the unluckiest.

71.  Rawls’ ‘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.  Inequality in distribution is just, if and only if, it benefits everyone, especially the least advantaged.

72.  Rawls’ ‘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?

73.  Most people would agree with Rawls’ 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 wealth, income, resources, and opportunities.

74.  The free market economy does not satisfy Rawls’ 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.

75.  For Rawls, a 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.

76.  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 through taxation can be used to benefit those who have less.

77.  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?

78.  A basic assumption of Rawls’ theory of justice is that government has the right to reallocate wealth, income, resources and opportunities.  It means that some government bureaucrats has the power to take away the income, wealth and resources of citizens and then redistribute them to other members of society.

79.  One objection to this is that this egalitarian policy of redistribution ignores the crucial question of how people have come to differ in the wealth they possess.  If people earned their money by legitimate means – working hard, taking risks, etc. – then they deserve what they have.

80.  To take people’s wealth from them in order to benefit those who have made wrong choices, were afraid of taking risks, or lost in fair competition is unjust because it takes from people what they deserve and uses it to benefit those who do not deserve it.

81.  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 the unequal rewards do not help to improve the position of the least advantaged.

82.  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’.

83.  The difference principle does not ask why someone is badly off. 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?

84.  Will redistribution discourage people from working hard because their productive labor is not adequately rewarded?

85.  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.

86.  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?

87.  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.

88.  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?

89.  Rawls seems to think that there is no necessary connection between how goods and services are produced and how they are distributed.  Is there any relationship between how wealth is created or acquired and how it should be distributed?

90.  What role should government play in the distribution of income and resources?  Do you think that a just society can be established through redistribution of income and resources? Why or why not?