Justice

What is justice? It seems we develop a sense of fairness from an early age and most people would agree with Plato that the only life worth living is the just life Yet philosophers struggle to define what justice actually is – it must surely contain the ideas of treating everyone consistently and allowing people freedom and rights

Mill: ‘to do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality’ Kant: treat people as ‘ends’ not ‘means’ Hare: ‘justice involves becoming an ‘ideal sympathiser’, putting ourselves in other people’s shoes

Singer: ‘equal consideration of interests is a minimal principle of equality... It does not dictate equal treatment’ Rawls: the principles of justice may be thought of as arising once the constraints of morality are imposed upon rational and mutually self- interested people Nozick: ‘past actions of people... Can create different entitlements or different deserts to things’

The debate about justice What is the nature of the principles that we should adopt? What is the content of a just law? What are the outcomes of a policy that can be accepted as fair? This is substantive justice, which tackles the ethical basis of a social system, asking why and how we should treat people the same, distinguishing between needs and deserts and relating opinions to our belief in human rights or fundamental moral values

Distributive justice How should we allocate the good things in society? E.g. Income, services, welfare, status? On what principles should the distribution be based – e.g. desert, merit, human rights, needs, utility?

Distributive justice & classical liberalism The classical liberal position is that our natural rights include property rights and there should be no interference with what people deserve through their own labour – God gave the Earth to the industrious This view is compatible with a high degree of inequality

Distributive justice & utilitarianism The position adopted by Mill is that the free market is the most efficient means of producing and distributing goods This freedom maximises happiness This view is compatible with a high degree of inequality There can also be conflict between people’s rights and social utility

Distributive justice & conservatism Tends to suggest a theory of natural justice based on desert, as presented in Plato’s ‘Republic’ This view is compatible with a high degree of inequality

Are these views just? These views are compatible with a high degree of inequality that would restrict liberty for some individuals A just society would be more egalitarian and would require some state intervention to regulate markets, redistribute property more evenly and secure fair opportunities for all At the very least, for a society to be just it must be to some extent run by welfare liberalism with a moderately controlled market This is Rawls’ theory of social justice, that social inequalities must be arranged to benefit the least advantaged

Property as right According to classical liberalism and conservatism, a just society recognises the right of individuals to own and acquire property In a state in which this interpretation of what is just is taken, property could be distributed very unevenly and it would be seen as unjust to interfere to change this

Distributive justice & socialism The free market is a wasteful and destructive form of market It produces alienated individuals A more equal distribution of goods is required in a just society Redistribution will not be necessary if there is one class and identity of interests and control of the means of production

Is this view just? If property rights are a requirement for justice, no It is questionable whether it would be possible for a centralised government to respect justice

Natural desert I own my body I own my talents Therefore I own the products of my talents

Welfare liberalism contra natural desert Rawls invites us to consider justice behind a veil of ignorance We forget specific information about our individual qualities, our special interests and beliefs and are ignorant of our destiny Rawls argues that we will distribute wealth fairly to – Ensure that everyone gets an equal start – To support the weak and vulnerable Rawls argues that we will accept this because it is just

Rawls’ two principles 1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive system of basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all 2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged to that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and attached to offices and positions open to all

Evaluation of Rawls’ veil of ignorance Would we really choose these principles behind a veil of ignorance? Why not bet on getting a good lot? Equality is a prerequisite of the argument The veil of ignorance is completely impossible as individuals are products of society and cannot be removed from themselves – it is an appeal to some weird form of atomism to think that we can stand behind a veil of ignorance at all

Justice and rights - Nozick For Nozick equality is in conflict with liberty Any policy to ensure redistribution of goods will require constant intervention and interference with those who accumulate wealth The talented will always disrupt the drive towards egalitarianism

Justice and rights - Nozick He uses the example of Wilt Chamberlain, a talented basketball player, who refuses to play unless people all pay an extra 25 cents each – He gains huge wealth with the voluntary agreement of his fans and without any unfair or illegal transactions – To redistribute his profit is to steal legal profit and to deny the wishes of the people – If the right to property is essential to personal liberty, redistribution contravenes that right ‘The socialist society would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults’ to achieve equality – Wolff – Socialists would not deny this or see it as a criticism

Evaluation of Nozick on justice and rights If Wilt is taxed and the money is used effectively then he will contribute to public services that will ultimately increase the opportunities he has What does ‘fairly acquired’ mean? – I worked for it – I really appreciate it – I bought it – I inherited it – I was brought up with it – I have a moral right to it – Etc.

Desert or merit? There is a potential clash with merit for those who emphasise desert Someone may work hard to achieve success but not reach sufficient competency to merit it Someone may work little and achieve greatness Some argue that justice should be about competency This entails agreed values, which is a problem for liberalism’s value pluralism The more we define what people must achieve in order to merit a reward, the less freedom there is to consider broader notions of desert

Desert or merit in a society of equal opportunities Why not select on merit rather than desert? Inequality will develop Considerable power is given to those who decide the criteria There will be a demand for positive discrimination if any group consistently underachieves

Socialism and needs ‘From each according to his ability to each according to his need’ needs to be distinguished from desert The problem in capitalism, however, is that of desert – a worker does not get what he deserves if a manager makes a profit from his labours People need a minimum level of resources – E.g. Minimum wage, healthcare, education, social housing This allows the needy to contribute to society

Socialism and needs However ‘being productive’ may not be valued by some There is not a clear link between the allocation of resources and needs being met Does not take into account deserved inequalities Tyranny of the majority What is a basic need?