Justice

Paradox of Justice Small volcanic island has two villages, “South Town” (Pop 300) and “North Village” (Pop 500). Threat of devastating volcanic eruption is great; both towns cooperate to invest in a large life- saving vessel on the nearby mainland coast Sudden eruption occurs; time enough for vessel to make only one round trip. Which village should be saved? Why?

Fairness Would it be “fair” always to privilege the larger town over the smaller? Why/why not? Invokes more than utility; can’t say you have violated anyone’s rights Problem is one of distribution of benefits and burdens (including risk)

Justice as Fairness Aristotle defined this dilemma as the problem of “justice” -- treating equals equally, or giving to each his due We need a formula or procedure for “fairness” -- for deciding who deserves what, or how things are to be apportioned

Formulae for Distribution which one do you think is the fairest – the most “just”?) “to each an equal share” (egalitarianism) “to each according to that person’s need” (Marxism?) “to each according to the persons effort” “to each according to that persons contribution or merit” “to each according to his or her success (at free market negotiations)”

Two Conceptions of Justice Aristotle also suggested we distinguish between: Retributive justice – crime, punishment, law enforcement (Billy Budd, capital punishment debates) Distributive justice – how are benefits and burdens (positive duties) handed out in society? (John Rawls reading for today; equal opportunity cases) But note that a formula for just and fair “distribution” in general could apply to punishment and law enforcement (so retributive is a special, important case of the second item)

Justice and Moral Theories a)Utilitarian: “justice” is the distribution of benefits and burdens that maximizes social welfare. Punishments should prevent and deter crime to promote the public good, and should also be proportional to the wrongs committed. b)Duty/Deontological – “the Social Contract” (Kant and Rawls): distribution of benefits and burdens (including punishment for wrongdoing) should follow a formula that is fair in the sense that all affected by it could give their rational consent. Such a formula would respect the autonomy of each individual as a chooser and decision- maker.

Kant on Justice The distinction we have seen in Kant and Mill between Positive Duties (imperfect) and Negative Duties (perfect), is also described by Kant as a distinction between: Duties of Virtue: the positive or imperfect duties to do good for others Duties of Justice: the negative, or perfect duties to refrain from doing harm or evil

From Kant to Rawls Rawls’s Theory of Justice is an extended essay on Kant’s CI 3 – the “Kingdom of Ends” Kant: moral agent is both a legislator and a citizen under the moral laws Rawls: we need to define this legislative capacity carefully as the foundation of justice – the “original position” – the overall thrust of Social Contract theory (from Hobbes & Locke to Rousseau and Kant)

The “Original Position” Kant’s CI 3 – what sort of laws would citizens make? Resulting legislation is not fair if prejudiced unduly by knowledge of one’s social position Presume a “veil of ignorance” – legislators are ignorant of their own social status when defining laws, institutions, procedures This is a concrete application of Kant’s “pure practical Reason,” or the “rational Will”

John Rawls – the Theory of Justice Justice is a virtue of social institutions that reward or benefit achievers (and presumably punish wrongdoers) according to principles that: 1)provide equal liberty for all participants in the system 2)provide equal opportunity or access to the means of achieving social goods (education, status, wealth, etc.) In particular: a)such principles may justify the resulting differences in social status arising from the free pursuit of goods and the self development of talents which work to the common advantage (and hence could win the common consent) of everyone – including the least advantaged – living under this system

How does this Work? Two principles of justice emerge from the definition of “rational choice” in the “original position” These principles, and the procedure (like the CI- procedure) provide a useful guide, a test of the adequacy of actual practices Examples: “Jim Crow” laws laissez-faire capitalism