Rawls: Justice as Fairness PDF

Preview

Summary

7: Rawls: Justice as FairnessLecture Distribution of talent is a matter of lucl Thought experiment – hypothetical contract o Origional position o Veil of ignorance What is justice and why should we agree with it? Principle of equal liberties a. Each person has equal right to the most extensive set o...

Description

7: Rawls: Justice as Fairness Lecture -

-

Distribution of talent is a matter of lucl Thought experiment – hypothetical contract o Origional position o Veil of ignorance What is justice and why should we agree with it?

1. Principle of equal liberties a. Each person has equal right to the most extensive set of basic liberties compatible with the same set for everyone (e.g. freedom of speech + religion, democratic rights…) b. Accepted wisdom for liberals 2. Split into a) and b) a. Difference principle i. Social and economic equalities are only acceptable if they benefit everyone 1. Make them better off than an = distribution would 2. Especially the worse off group ii. You can justify having inequalities within society if everyone benefits iii. Inequalities are justified in society if the trickle down effect actuall workd – govt. has a role to make sure the trickle down effect does work 1. Not specifically advocating trickle down economics – not practical b. Fair equality of opportunity i. Everyone is to have such opportunity to gain access to social positions, political offices, economic opportunities ii. Not matter how rich/ well connected iii. Makes 1 step to 2a) - 3 principles are lexically ordered – cannot acrifice one for another etc. Why would people agree? - element of competition + cooperation – football analogy – play by the rules as people want to play - we want the benefits of society e.g. stable inst. - We also have group interests that inflict with others – idea of give + take The OP - building political inst. – bequeath any rights/duties etc. - thought experiment - Rawls: able to bracker interests, we can think abstracting our own stake o Can specify conditions to reach a reliable view of what justice requires - 7 of them  Unanimous agreement by free + equal participants o Not ore powerful imposing their view  Rationality o People understand means-end logic o Logical consistency o Mentally disabled – interests should be known

 Mutual disninterest o Not thinking in moral terms, how to imprive own situ o Neither aluturism nor envt – how to improve own situation o People want the best for themselves  Circumstances of justice apply o Cooperation beneficial to everyone but also conflicts of interest o Moderate scarcity – people capable of a sense of justice o Human subjective correlate  People not generous to each other as there would be no need for justice, but if people are mean no way to get them to cooperate for justice o Therefore people have a sense of justice  Veil of ignorance o Impartial reciprocity o One brackets out ones own values and psychological preferences o When the veil is ‘lifted’ we want to be ‘ok’ within society  Knowledge of general truths about humans and societies o Informed view of how principles of justice would work in society o Ignorance of themselves but heightened understanding of human psychology etc.  Concern with ‘stability’ of society o Operating according to publically known principles o No point generating principles that may collapse in the short term How it differs from utilitarianism - Util = greatest happiness foe the greatest amount of people - Util could not rule out slavery- as if greatest no. were happy - Whereas Rawls could: not an option one would accept in their own case – VofI therefore not imposed regardless of utility Tutorial - Rawls: neoliberal concern – individual freedom and economic sense, raitonal argument of the OP - Distributive/redistributive justice of social primary goods o Wealth/resources, access to offices of power (opportunities) and rights + liberties - Facilitating individual self realisation - Fair equality of opportunity: social class/wealth - Not advocating affirmative action or a quota - Ideal vs. non-ideal theory distinction – closest approximate - Could property rights violate liberty for all? - Why would people in the OP choose Rawls’ principle o Maximin outcomes – worst postion is the best they possibly can bein o All about hedging bets - Why better than egalitarianism? o Lack of effort o Lack of incentives – no reason for the talented to be innovative/ entrperneurial o Therefore total wealth of society will be very low - General knowledge about human beings? Interested in justice not the best possible/ best imaginable society

-

Utilitarianism only gives out R+L’s for maximum utility – minority groups could therefore get fewer rights Because we do not know which group – ensures us being against the wrong group Thought experiment is good as appeals to moral arguments than self interest Social democratic – not as far fetched as seen – go back 50yrs 96% tax What makes Rawls a liberal? Equality of opportunity, egalisatrianism , traditional liberal rights Utilitarianism: social utility – bentham o Caluculating units, small minority gets left behind OP criticisms: o Others not self-interested individuals o We do not know what we need to pusrise for a self-interested person cannot negotiate your own position o What we desire is in society – social factors  Constructing something that we don’t know what we want

Readings Rawls - equal right to the most extensive liberties - inequalities arbitrary unless they work in the best interest of everyone – offices open to all - 3 components express justice as a complex o liberty  idea of greatest equal liberty instead of simply equal liberty – why settle for less when can have more? o Equality  Inequality only allowed if it will work to the advantage of every person  Relies on a) common sense that this is likely to be the case b) all men must agree in every office that it would be in their interests and c) offices open to all – judges on merit - Prima facie obligation: at first sight - Bound by the duty of fair play Brown - Rawls: priority of the right over the good, what is right is to be est. independently from what is good - Rawls inspired by traditional social contract theory people are ‘rationally self interested and non envious’ - Will choose presumptive equality - OP meant to embody contractism - 2 main doubts of people choosing the OP as Rawls say they will” o Rawls’ insistence that it is rational for his contractors to employ a maximin strategy in the choice of principles  Rationality of people meand thet will want the maximisation of ones share of social primary goods  But… a person cannot be this directly concerned with his own interests, but onlu which his interests whatever they turn out to be  Not everyones interests can be maximised at once – need a more complect form of raitonal choice

-

-

-

-

-

o Concerns the ranking of socual primary goods so as to give priority to liberty Rawls’ argument that inequalitied which would make the worst-off bettwe off would be acceptable to someone in the OP o But overly biased in favour of equality? o Why should a non-envious person begrudge someone else their good fortune if this does not make him actualy worse off? o Worse off have to be compensated for the intro of inequality Risk averse: idea that people are rational and therefore will tread with caution o However argument that on the economic rationality – ‘people will simply calculate their probable benefits and burdens and seek to maximise their probable share of utility’ – nothing irrational ‘in risking life and limb for the prospect of great riches’ Assumptio that everyone has the same knowledge of a good life and follows Aristlean view- argumentd for a different good life e.g. live for today and let tomorrow look after itself Rawls errorneos: relies on a particular well-deinfed notion of the seld when all his theory will allow if the rational self of economic theory o Thus no need to be cautious as Rawls claims For liberty to be given priority is spurious since it depende on the fact that other, more basic, goods are already provided Not a contract theort: social contract normally requires parties with conflicting interests – but in Rawls only one party – should eb an ideal-observer theory People in te OP are simply confused

Dworkin - principles are conservative and only be chosen by pwople who were equally conservative, not natural gamblers - hypotherical contract is not a pale form of an actual contract, it it no contract at all - if we take it to argue for the fairness of applying the 2 principles we must take it to argue that because a man would have consented to certain principles if asked in advance, it is fair to apply those prinicples to him later, under different circumstaces, when he does not consent - not actually in best interest to choose principle 2 as when the veil is lifter, people will discover that they would have been better off if some other principle was chosen users idea of precursor not actual interest - a particular choice is in my interests at a particular time under conditions of great uncertainty, is not a good argument for the fairness of enforcing that choice against me later under conditions of much greater knowledge Kukathas + Pettit - political theory about both feasibility and desirability - Rawls offers an alternative path to follow in thinking about issues of desirability - All aprties in the OP assumed to vote in the same wat as equally ignorant and raitonal - Rawls makes 2 assumptions: o People have a sense of justice ,and if appropriate Is chose then people will comply with it, there will not be a significant no. of defectors - Similar to plato – Socrates asks whether something is holy because the gods love it, or whther the gods love it because it is holy o Similarly whether arrangements under the OP are just because it would be chosen in the OP or whether it would be chosen because it is just

-

-

-

Omits needs/desert based principles – Rawls contractarian method appears to rule out many conceptions of justive before rational deliberation within the social contract begins Why we would choose maximin: o Principle od insufficient reason o Contractors will be happy with the worst off situation o We would not be able to stand it – intolerable o Ops unusual rule makes us fo to the conservative stance Nozick rights: personal liberty and provate property Difference between Rawls (redistributive state) and Nozick (minimal state) is the second it guided by a historical conception of justice + the first by a structural one Nozick: Rawlsian theory treats the goods whose distribution raises questions of justice as manna from heaven: as goods to which no one in particular has any entltilement from the point of view of the OP

Nozick - Justice in holdings is historical: it depends upon what has actually happened - General outline of theory of justice: o The holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer, or by the principle of rectification of injustice o If each persons holding are just, then the total set (distribution) is just o Rectification by institution, but institution is lead by the people - Time slice principles of justie judeged by structural principles - Justice as entitlement o The justice of any actual set of holdings depens entirely of processes which ti came about – when no actual wrongdoinfs, no harm o patterend (equality, desert, difference principle) o entitlement thgouth is historical, vs end state or non-patterned - a set of holdings is just if o t is outcome of a series of just transfers of holdings  any non-coercive, non fraudulent transaction o which were inisitally acquired justly  mixes labour with it, leaving enough and as good for others Lockean proviso – leave htem no worse off than they otherwise would have been o (plus… because present holdings mat have unjust histories) ‘justice rectificaiton’ : return holdings to rightful owners - Problem with patterned: Rawls: o Liberty upsets patterns  Maintianign patterns requires state coercion so patterned theories incompatible with liberty, so should be rejected  Redistributive taxation is on a par with forced labour: working 3hrs that goes to tax  ‘equal at dawn, unequal at noon’  the particular distribution would be quicly undone by people freely acting and transacting o specific Rawls criticism on natural talents aren’t deserved ‘morlaly arbitrary; - should be seen as collective assets  lack of respect for individuals – be treated as ‘means’ by others



o

wouldn’t it justify ‘coercively redistributing peoples eyes to thise who need them?’ Rawls treats economic goods as manna from heaven (image that stuff is already there)

Tom Notes - Primacry goods: o The conception of the good Hitler and Mother Teresa will, in realty, be completely different. But take this conception away and they will share the same desires for primary goods. Rejecting the OP 1. Rawls claims that given their condition of ignorance – they would choose to make their worst prospect as pleasant as possible – rather than concern about the average. Pettit: Why would they choose maximin? Alternatives: - Maximax (extreme optimist – too risky) - Reasons for rejecting maximum utility: a. Due to VoI, any calculations of expected utility should be treated with scepticism.  we don’t know enough to calculate i. BUT: Even under a heavy veil actors may choose to assign themselves equal chance of placement in any position. b. Condition of the OP would make contractors happy with the minimum good they could get and disinclined to get more: c. Alternative may lead to undesirable outcomes. - Reason to reject the maximin approach o Say that we had the choice of driving to the beach, or staying at home all day. Driving to the beach – the best that could happen is that we have a great day, but the worst that could happen is that we die in a car crash. Wheras if we stay at home, the worst that could happen is that Uncle Bob comes round and bores us. We should stay at home, because this is the most superior worst position to be in (i.e. not dead).  surely any choice-rule should tell us to take a small risk to gain reasonable benefit. 2. Rawls claims that given their knowledge of human psychology, rational individuals would choose a principle which, when implemented, would generate its own support.] a. Principles of JaF are ones that parties of the OP can rely on one another to adhere to once adopted. I.e. no consequences we can reject. 3. Logical derivation of the two principles of the O.P: a. Thomas argues that contractors could choose two different principles, or a different ordering of the principles already chosen. b. Different Principle: why not employ a principle of highest average utility with only a small amount of difference between the upper and lower limits? c. Different Ordering: Why would contractors not choose to allow a slight infringement of ‘equality of opportunity’ to gain more social and economic equalities. 4. Limitation of knowledge in the O.P. a. Sandal: The unencumbered person isn’t possible!

i. Rawls supports the idea that a person stripped of everything that makes them a person besides rationality and basic knowledge of scientific facts will allow them to make an independent rational choice about the basic structure. How is this possible? The unencumbered self is an illusion: no such person could exist. b. Nagel: i. Why can’t we allow contractors knowledge of their conceptions of good: surely this is necessary for them to make decisions about basic principles of society? He could still not be selfish because of the VoI. 1. Rawls argues that this would prevent unanimity in the O.P. – we need to supress particular conceptions of the good so that primary goods can be discovered. 2. However: The O.P doesn’t work. To avoid the act of bargaining (i.e. not unanimity) we are supressing information that is morally relevant. ii. Rawls argues that contractors care little about what they might be able to achieve above the minimum. 1. But: given that contractors don’t know the state of development of their societies, and therefore don’t know what minimum they will be guaranteed by a maximin strategy, then it’s difficult to understand how an individual can know what minimum will be guaranteed. PPQs  ‘Would the parties to the original position agree on those principle of justice posited by Rawls?’ (2008)  ‘Can Rawls’s reasons for rejecting cosmopolitanism be defended against his critics?’ (2007, 2009, 2010, 2013)  ‘Is the fact that particular principles of justice would be chosen in the Original Position a sufficient reason to accept them? (2011, 2012).  ‘If Tanzania were a province of Germany instead of an independent state, we would regard the socio-economic disparities between them a flagrant violation of social justice’ (David Miller) what is the morally relevant difference between the hypothetical and the actual circumstances? (2012).  Does Rawls’s method of arriving at principles of justice succeed in capturing what any reasonable person might think about what justice is? (2013)  Should Rawls’s principles of justice within a state be applied globally? (2014)  ‘Is the fact that particular principles of justice have been chosen in the Original Position a sufficient reason to accept them?’ (2014)...