Justice as Fairness.

Justice as Fairness

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

Content Distributive justice Justice as fairness Desert Utilitarianism
Original position Principles of justice Lexical priority Difference principle Redistribution Criticisms

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.

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

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 is often based on ‘merit’; and distribution of bonuses is often based on ‘achievement’.

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 equally.

Distributive justice Some 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

Distributive justice Principles of desert say that people ought to get what they deserve. People should be rewarded in proportion to how hard they work, or how much risk they bear in undertaking a given line of work, or how well they satisfy their customers.

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 people should have equal shares of whatever is being distributed.

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.

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.

Distributive justice Some modern philosophers and social thinkers, however, argue that the notion of ‘distributive justice’ must also incorporate other considerations such as equality and fairness.

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

Justice as fairness The individual members of society share common interests, but there is also conflict of interests among them. Income, wealth and opportunities are scarce relative to people’s need and wants, so members of a society have conflicting interests over economic distribution.

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 people would accept?

Justice as fairness ‘Justice as fairness’ is Rawls’s theory of justice for a liberal society. The aim of a theory of justice is to propose principles to guide political and social institutions in such a way that each individual receives a fair share of social benefits and burdens.

Justice as fairness The principles of justice are principles that regulate what Rawls calls the ‘basic structure of society’, i.e. the way in which the major social institutions distribute rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation.

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

Justice as fairness Suppose there is one 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. The consensus derived guarantees that the cake will be shared fairly, equating ‘justice’ with ‘fairness’.

Desert According to principles of desert, people freely apply their abilities and talents, in varying degrees, to socially productive work. As such, people come to deserve varying levels of income by providing goods and services desired by others.

Desert Distributive systems are just insofar as they distribute incomes according to the different levels earned or deserved by the individuals in the society for their productive labors, efforts, or contributions.

Desert For Rawls, however, ‘desert’ is not a relevant consideration in distributive justice. Merit, in particular, should not be used as the basis for distribution of income, because it is largely the result of ‘luck’, ‘chance factors’ or the ‘natural lottery’ (i.e. factors over which people have little or no control).

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). In Rawls’s view, no one really deserves the benefits arising from his or her abilities, talents, families, etc.

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.

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

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 was just lucky that, by some combination of heredity and environment, he ended up with superior skills.

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

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

Desert Rawls’s 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.

Desert For Rawls, inequality resulting from luck or good fortune is unjust unless it benefits those less fortunate, particularly the least advantaged members of society. He goes on to argue that one of the tasks of governments is to remedy the unfairness of the natural lottery.

Utilitarianism Rawls rejects utilitarianism. 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.

Utilitarianism Rawls’s central complaint, however, is that utilitarianism allows some people’s interests to be sacrificed if that would give rise to greater benefits for others. Utilitarians propose that we ought to maximize the total sum of net benefits, rather than attend to the interests of each considered separately.

Utilitarianism There would appear to be ways of maximizing social utility overall that do an injustice to particular individuals. Think of the Roman practice of throwing people to the lions for the enjoyment of all those in the Colosseum.

Utilitarianism While utilitarianism may try to justify infringements upon the rights of some individuals if these infringements produce a greater happiness for a larger number of other individuals, the theory of justice as fairness denies that infringements upon the basic rights of individuals can ever be morally justified.

Utilitarianism As Rawls remarks, utilitarianism could theoretically justify slavery, but no rational self-interested person could accept that form of inequality, if he himself might be among the slaves.

Original position One of the main reasons why people join together to form a society is that they want to increase the amount of ‘primary goods’ available for all. Rawls defines primary goods as ‘things that every rational man is presumed to want’. These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, income and wealth, and self-respect.

Original position 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. He also believes that a system of fair distribution should be the result of the social contract.

Original position In coming together to form a society people must agree on the principles that govern social and political institutions. The ‘social contract’ is a thought experiment which involves a group of imagined contractors trying to reach agreement of principles of justice.

Original position Rawls postulates that the imagined contractors are rational and self-interested – they are interested in securing the maximum amount of primary goods for themselves.

Original position But, at the same time, the contractors are mutually disinterested, i.e. they are interested purely in their own fortune, not that of others. They are not ‘envious’ of others; they will not be made happy or unhappy by either the good or the bad fortune of other persons.

Original position Rawls supposes that people’s views of justice are often biased, in part, by their own particular interests. For example, some rich people may be strongly opposed to taxation, while some poor people will want the rich to be taxed more than they are at present, in order to increase welfare benefits.

Original position Rawls’s idea is that, while justice requires impartiality, impartiality can be modeled by assuming ignorance. This opens the way for a hypothetical social contract.

Original position Rawls imagines people considering together what basic principles they should agree upon for the ordering of social institutions. He asks us to think of these persons as being in an ‘original position’, deprived of attributes that would introduce bias into their thought. He calls this a ‘veil of ignorance’.

Original position 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.

Original position Veil of ignorance: The contractors are ignorant of any features which distinguish them from their fellow contractors. They are unaware of their place, class position or social status within society.

Original position 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 a scheme of justice that treats everyone fairly.

Original position Thus, the veil of ignorance precludes the tendency to favor principles that serve particular interests by excluding knowledge of particular interests. It focuses contractors to look at society not from their own social position, but objectively and impartially.

Original position As Rawls himself puts it, the purpose of the veil of ignorance is to ensure “that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances…

Original position Since all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain.”

Original position Rawls maintains that since every contractor is aware of 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 and especially for the least advantaged.

Principles of justice According to Rawls, the two principles of justice which would be agreed to by rational and mutually disinterested individuals in the ‘original position’ are: [1] 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. (‘principle of equal liberty’)

Principles of justice [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’)

Principles of justice The first principle (the principle of equal liberty) 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.

Principles of justice 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.

Principles of justice A distinction can be made between ‘formal equality of opportunity’ and ‘fair equality of opportunity’. ‘Formal equality of opportunity’ simply means nondiscrimination, i.e. no unfair or unequal opportunity of one individual over another.

Principles of justice Basically, formal equality of opportunity is characterized by: [1] equal access to educational or employment opportunities; [2] open and fair competition; and [3] applying the same standard to everyone in the assessment or selection process.

Principles of justice 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.

Principles of justice For this reason, Rawls believes that formal equality of opportunity is not enough. He advocates ‘fair equality of opportunity’ which entails 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.

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

Principles of justice It implies that laws and policies have to be enforced to raise the position of the least advantaged in society. Thus, in a just society, a fair amount of resources should be redistributed to help the poorest members.

Lexical priority According to Rawls, the first principle of justice (the principle of equal liberty) is lexically 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.

Lexical priority Rawls explains that the lexical or logical priority of the first principle of justice over the second principle implies that violations of basic rights cannot be justified by arguing that such violations may produce economic or social advantages.

Lexical priority 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.

Lexical priority What this means, for Rawls, 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. Thus, according to this view, we cannot sacrifice liberty for the sake of anything else.

Difference principle Rawlsian contractors would initially agree to equal division of all primary goods. However, if an inequality benefits everyone compared to equality, it is rational to permit it – they would accept inequalities that benefit everyone compared to equal division.

Difference principle In other words, a rational, self-interested Rawlsian contractor in the original position will prefer inequality to equality if and only if inequality is more advantageous to him or her than inequality, in terms of enjoyment of primary goods.

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

Difference principle 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 – and so produce more – than they might for average pay.

Difference principle 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 this 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.

Difference principle The inequality between a doctor’s salary and a clerk’s is only acceptable if this 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 therefore disadvantage everyone).

Difference principle 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.

Difference principle Rawls suggests that every rational person should agree with the ‘maximin’ rule: the idea that a fair system of distribution must maximize the primary goods enjoyed by the least favored class.

Difference principle A rational contractor in the original position should consider the possibility the he or she might be in the minimal (i.e. least advantaged) position, and so he or she should ensure the maximum benefit for it.

Difference principle Rawls’s ‘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. In other words, inequality in distribution is just, if and only if, it benefits everyone, especially the least advantaged.

Difference principle Question: Rawls’s 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?

Redistribution It seems that people generally agree with Rawls’s 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 income, resources, and opportunities.

Redistribution The market does not itself satisfy Rawls’s 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.

Redistribution For Rawls, a fair and 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.

Redistribution 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 by taxation can be used to benefit those who have less.

Redistribution Question: 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?

Criticisms A basic assumption of Rawls’s theory of justice is that the government has the right to reallocate income, resources and opportunities. It implies that some government bureaucrats will be able to take possession of private wealth and resources and redistribute them among all members of society.

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

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

Criticisms 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 their unequal rewards do not help to improve the position of the least advantaged.

Criticisms The difference principle does not ask why someone is badly off. Perhaps it is his own fault. 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?

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

Criticisms 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.

Criticisms 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?

Criticisms 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.

Criticisms 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?

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

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

Justice as Fairness.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Justice as Fairness."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Justice as Fairness.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Justice as Fairness."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback