Liberalism John Rawls

Spectrum achieve economic equality  curtail liberty (Liberalism, Egalitarianism) maximize liberty  allow for (don’t do anything about) economic disparity (Libertarianism)

Rawls on the Just State Justice as fairness A just society is one run on just principles A just society would be a fair society Fairness involves Distributive Justice There is a fair distribution of primary social goods wealth, opportunities, liberties and privileges, bases of self respect (e.g. equality of political representation)

Basic Principle of Justice All social primary goods – liberty, opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect – are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored Equal share – treat people equally Allow for inequalities only if they benefit everyone, by drawing out socially useful talents and energies, then they will be acceptable to everyone E.g. CEO – talent required and is beneficial to everyone If giving a CEO more money because it furthers interests of everyone else, then equal concern suggests that we allow, rather then prohibit, that inequality

Rawls on the Just State Two Principles of Justice 1. (The Liberty Principle) Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of basic rights and liberties, compatible with the same scheme for all 2. (The Difference Principle) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions : they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity

Principle 1 Rawls not saying all liberties are prior to economic distribution, only some basic ones Example of Basic Liberties: E.g. right to vote, to run for office, due process, free speech, mobility Not uncontroversial – but distinctive of liberalism

Principle 2 – The Difference Principle Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of basic rights and liberties, compatible with the same scheme for all Two argument for principle of Economic Justice – Contrast his theory with what he takes to be the prevailing ideology concerning distributive justice – namely, the ideal of equality of intuitions concerning justice. His theory better fits our intuitions His principle of justice is superior because they are the outcome of a hypothetical social contract. All people in a pre-social state would choose his state over any other – each person in the original position has a rational interest in adopting Rawlsian principle for governing of social cooperation.

Arg 1 for Principle 2 Rawls supports his theory by first rejecting the prevailing justification for economic distribution Prevailing View: Inequalities of income and prestige are justified just in case there was fair competition in the awarding of the offices and positions that yield those benefits $100,000 salaries are fine if everyone had an equal start Rawls thinks this is sensible because: ensures that people’s fate is determined by their choices, rather than by their circumstances. We want success to be determined by performance rather than race, class, sex. Success is earned not given/ Success is result of merit, and those who get it deserve it However, he wants to reject the view despite the fact that it is largely true

Rawls Objection What about natural talents? Does someone deserve to get higher salary just because they were born with a high IQ, or deserve less of a salary because they were born handicapped? Why is it wrong for environmental factors to influence success but alright for biological factors? If people’s fates are determined by biological factors – why are these people any more deserving – then someone who is handed down privileged status due to birthright. Natural talents, and social circumstances are both matter of luck, so neither individual should be rewarded on the basis of that fact

The prevailing view only recognizes difference in social circumstances, while ignoring difference in natural talents (or treating them as if they were one of our choices) How should we treat differences in natural talents? No one deserves his greater capacity nor merits a more favorable starting place in society The goods should be distributed so that they benefit the least fortunate – both in what talents have been bestowed upon them by fortune – and what circumstances they happen to be in Problem; even though bio and cirm are morally arbitrary – it does not mean that inequalities should only influence destruction when it would benefit the least well off. All inequalities must work for the benefit of the least well off. What if I was not born into a privileged social group, and was not born with any special talents, and yet by my own choices and effort have managed to secure a larger income than others? Nothing in this argument explains why the difference principle applies to all inequalities, rather than just to those inequalities which stem from morally arbitrary factors.

Arg 2: Veil of Ignorance Rawls supports his view of justice by arguing that the distribution scheme he favors is one all rational individual would choose from a certain hypothetical standpoing The Veil of Ignorance Suppose people chose the wealth distribution scheme from behind a Veil of Ignorance where they didn’t know what their talents were or where they would be placed in society What type of scheme would they choose? Rawls thinks that everyone would choose a society that would be fair to all because they’d have to live with their choice So, a fair society is one that any rational, self-interested person behind the veil of ignorance would want to join What wrong with knowing your talent (say stronger, more clever, more agile, more adaptive, etc) is that you would not agree to a social contract unless it furthered your natural or environmental advantages. This is biased and unfair (since these natural advantages are undeserved, they are accidental)

Rawls on the Just State What is the rational position to chose from the veil of ignorance? We would follow a maximin choice principle choose the setup in which your worst outcome is better than your worst outcome in any other setup Maximize what you would get if you wound up in the worst off position

Maximin Here is an example to illustrate the maximin principle: Imagine a three person world Three schemes of how well off the three persons are Joe Jane Jill Distribution Scheme 1. 10 : 8 : 1 Distribution Scheme 2. 7 : 6 : 2 Distribution Scheme 3. 5 : 4 : 4 Rawls: pick (3) – if you don’t know how likely it is that you will be in the best or worst position, i.e. you did not know if you are Joe, Jane or Jill, the rational choice according to Rawls is the third Even if you end up in the worst position, it gives you more than your would get if you were in the bottom Notice: the average utility of 1, 2 are higher than 3

Choosing Specific Principles All people are committed to an ideal of a good life Artist Stock broker Philosopher, Scientist Certain things are needed in order for the good life to be attained Social primary goods – goods that are directly distributed by social institution (income and wealth, opportunities and power, rights and liberties) Natural primary goods (health, intelligence, vigor, imagination, natural talents – which are affected by social organization but not distributed by them() The specific principles are chosen from the veil of ignorance No one has any plans, so they can’t place higher value on development of art, stock broker, or a scientist

Objection Is the maximin the choice a rational person would make? Some people would choose a scheme that allow them the possibility for enormous wealth, no matter how unlikely it might be These people would prefer a likely life in abject poverty as long as there is a chance that they might be highly successful However, it is arguable that from the point of view of the Veil of Ignorance, one would have to strip away high ambition, because these too could be the result of a wealthy upbringing or at least an upbringing that heavily favored a highly successful life

Rawls on the Just State The Difference Principle Taxation is a means of redistributing wealth for the benefit of the least well-off But, everyone, including the least well-off, would suffer with excessive taxation On the other hand, too little taxation and the least well-off suffer economically Between these extremes there will be an optimum taxation level, according to the difference principle

Objection to Original Position Argument What is left of personal identity if we don’t know what our talents are, or our circumstances, ethnicity, etc? A Thought experiment meant to ensure fairness – so that the privilege to not pick a kind of Intuitive test for fairness E.g. someone cuts a cake at a dinner – mix up the plates so that the person who cuts the cake can’t cut the biggest piece for them Rawls is not saying that we get a contract is assigned via this hypothetical position – the thought experiment is a way of showing what fairness and justice in society really is

Objection Justice works within a society But what about So, a person that does make $100,000 and had no privileges But, those person would they no have to work for the poor – to help them out of poverty, etc.

Objection: Tennis Player and the Gardener Imagine that we have succeeded in equalizing people’ social and natural circumstances Two people, equal talent, same social background: One plays tennis all day (works at a farm just enough to survive, buy a piece of land for a tennis court. The other wants to buy the same land to make a garden to produce and sell vegetables for herself and others. Both start from equal distribution of resources, which is enough for each person to get their desired land, and start their tennis and gardening The gardener will quickly come to have more resources than the tennis player, if we allow the market to work freely. The Gardener use her initial share in such a way as to generate a steadier and larger stream of income, whereas the tennis play gain no income from his labor, barely survives. Gardener chose income over leisure, Tennis player chose leisure over income Rawls would only allow this inequality if it benefits the least well off. If the tennis-player does not benefit from the inequality, then the government should transfer some of her income to him in order to equalize income. So, what the tax does is subsidize leisure that does not benefit anyone except the tennis player. The tennis player then is a free loader and is rewarded for it. Point: A distribution scheme should not just be endowment-insensitive, but also ambition-sensitive