distributive justice
refers to the proper distribution of benefits and burdens
-a theory of this attempts to establish a connection btwn the properties/characteristics of persons and the morally correct distribution of benefits and burdens in society
strict egalitarianism
we ought to distribute goods and services equally. each person is a moral equal. persons deserve respect. the best way to respect persons is to treat them equally
SE possibility 1
we give everyone equal "bundles" of goods (problem=some ppl need more of something or less of something; everyone does not have same requirements)
SE possibility 2
we distribute income or wealth equally (this is what most choose); if we want this over time, then we will have to continually redistribute well
problems=free rider issue (some work harder than others)
one distinction frequently mentioned in the literature is=
between equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity
SE's advocate for=
equality of outcome
idea- each person should have
an equal shot at a decent life
most straightforward version of "equality of opportunity" will state=
that a society cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, race, gender, etc. (we cannot give some groups of ppl fewer opportunities base don factors outside their control)
qualified egalitarianism
John Rawls
John Rawls -what he termed as his difference principle
all economic goods/services should be distributed equally except when an unequal distribution would work to everyone's advantage
Rawls would say we may have to ....
increase the relative difference between those most well-off and those least well-off in order to improve the position of the least well-off
welfare principles
ex-utilitarianism: we ought to distribute goods and services in a way that maximizes human welfare. the goods and services are not themselves intrinsically valuable. they are only valuable in so far that they promote welfare
why might utilitarianism require an unjust distribution of goods?
because it focuses on maximizing human welfare rather than equality
desert principles
people should receive society's benefits in proportion to their level of desert
basis of desert is -
contribution
effort
libertarian principles
a focus on protecting individual rights/liberties
Robert nozick
libertarian
will argue that we should not be trying to produce any sort of "distributive pattern" (maximizing welfare)
focus on just principles of acquisition and transfer/ how one acquired their goods
protect individual rights
SE mean problem
people not getting what they actually need and want
extra credit example in class- Rawls
more likely to choose whats fair if we don't know who we are
Rawls original position
stripped of all identifying features
-behind a "VEIL OF IGNORANCE"
-Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes.
-Behind this
nozick's entitlement theory
3 rules of distributive justice
nozick's principle 1
the rule concerning how one comes to acquire something not previously possessed by anyone (THIS IS JUSTICE IN ACQUISITION)
nozick's principle 2
the rule concerning how things can be transferred from one person to another (JUSTICE IN TRANSFER)
examples of unjust forms of transfer
stealing, deception, fraud
-an injustice is tolerable only when it sis necessary to avoid an even greater injustice
nozick's principle 3
the rule concerning how we are to rectify past injustices; violations of rules 1 and 2
(JUSTICE IN RECTIFICATION)
wilt chamberlain example
nozick believes it demonstrates that if we want to reduce inequality then we will have to regularly restrict peoples liberties and or violate peoples rights (WHY?)
under what conditions, does Rawls believe inequalities are justified?
-an injustice is tolerable only when it sis necessary to avoid an even greater injustice
-if certain inequalities would make everyone better off than in this hypothetical starting situation, then they accord with the general conception
different types of desert bases?
deservingness, effort, skills, responsibility, economic contribution, difficulty stress, dangerousness, unpleasantness the job requires
Why does Moriarty think that the CEO's contribution to the firm is not 301 times as valuable as the average worker's?
they do not deserve to make 301 times the amount as their employees; they deserve this if and only off his contribution os 301 times as valuable as the worker's
-for every $1 revenue the worker generates, the CEO must generate $30.1 million
what is the "utility view" in relation to corporate executive pay?``
it conceives wages not as rewards for past work, but as incentives for future work
the purpose of wages is to maximize firm wealth by attracting, retaining, and motivating talented workers
(perhaps most important view of the three)
Why does Moriarty think that CEOs need not be offered $8 million in pay in order to attract, retain, and motivate talented people
-they do not deserve it; too much money
-the company as a whole would suffer?
-a. expensive CEO can easily earn his keep through even small increases in the price of companys stock
-if and only if he deserves it (desert view)
-it is just if an only if it
Rawls's Two Principles of Justice:
First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. [The Equal Rights Claim]
Rawls articulates this as the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others;
Why the first principle(Rawls)? What was the problem with utilitarianism as a principle of distributive justice discussed in class?
Very Kantian in that it provides for for basic and universal respect for persons as a minimum standard for all just institutions. But while all persons amy e morally equal, we also know that in the "real world" there are significant differences between in
Why might someone in the original position(Rawls) adopt 2 (b)?
According to (b), a society that discriminates on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. etc. is an unjust society. The fact that a person is a woman (for example) should not disqualify her from opportunities, such as positions and offices.
Rawl
Why might someone in the original position (Rawls) adopt 2(a)?
...
Why might someone accept that "liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect" ought to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values it to everyone's advantage?
...
when are people entitled to their possessions
entitlement theory tells you
why does Nozick characterize his theory as "historical?
...
For Nozick: of entitlement theory he says.. (4 things)
1)You are entitled to your talents, abilities, intelligence level, and other traits that may help you make stuff, sell stuff,and acquire stuff from others. . .
2)Since you are entitled to these traits, you are entitled to what these traits allow you to ac
what is the Wilt Chamberlain example intended to show?
that no end-state principle or distributional patterned principle of justice can be continuously realized without continuous interference with peoples lives
-attempts to show that patterned principles of just distribution are incompatible with liberty
-al
what Nozick might have meant when he called some principles of distributive justice "patterned?
meaning people exchanging goods and services with other ppl or giving things to others, things the transferrers are entitled to under the favored distributional pattern
-in order to maintain a pattern, one must either continually interfere to take some pe
John Rawls (1921-2002)'s Objections:
...
what would Rawls say about Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain example?
Rawls would disagree because his first principle (Liberty) must be favored over the second redistributive one
Would Rawls agree that the government has no right to tax Chamberlain's income and give some of that money to the poor?
...
Rawls's Conclusion:
we ought to distribute resources equally except when an unequal distribution will improve the condition of the least advantaged members of society.
Prima facie duties and rights can be overridden by
more pressing/important duties and rights.
Rawls' dissatisfaction
he's dissatisfied with the traditional philosophical arguments about what makes a social institution just and about what justifies political or social actions and policies.
Utilitarian argument
The Utilitarian argument holds that societies should pursue the greatest good for the greatest number. This argument has a number of problems, including, especially, that it seems to be consistent with the idea of the tyranny of majorities over minorities
Outside of Original Position (Rawls)
Rawls maintains that the choice to choose what arrangement of the society a rational person chooses would be for a social structure that would best benefit the unknowing chooser if she or he happened to end up in the least desirable position.
Rawls argues that in a well-ordeed society,
ideas of goodness and justice must be consistent with each other.
Rawls posits equal distribution of resources as the desirable state and then argues that inequality can be justified only by
benefits for the least advantaged.
Nozick points out that resources are ...
produced by people and that people have rights to the things they produce. Thus, attempts to improve the condition o the least advantaged through redistribution are unjust because they make some people work involuntarily for others and deprive people of t
those whom reason with The Original Position are...
assumed to be rational in the prudential(show care, business side) sense. They seek to maximize their own interests.
The principles of justice selected from the original position are chosen behind
a veil of ignorance (unaware of personal traits like social position, race, wealth, strength, intelligence, handicaps, gender etc.)
the difference principle would ..
allocate resources in education, so as to improve the long term expectation of the least favored
main problem of distributive justice is
the choice of a social system