Sandel Chapter 6 - Summary Justice: What\'s the Right Thing to Do? PDF

Preview

Summary

Chapter 6 summary for Justice...

Description

Sandel Chapter 6 The only individuals who live in the United States and have actually agreed to live by the Constitution, besides government officials, are naturalized citizens-immigrants who take an oath of allegiance as a condition of their citizenship. Why are the rest of us, therefore, required to obey the law? In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls argues that the way to think about justice is to ask what principles we would agree to in an initial situation of equality. Basically, if we were all to gather, as we are, to determine the social contract of society. It would be extremely difficult for us all to agree, because we all have different experience and therefore prioritize different values. We might come to a compromise in this situation, but even a compromise would most likely reflect the ideas of the majority. There is no reason to assume that a social contract agreed on this way would be a just agreement. Rawl theory of a social contract is best imagined through a thought experiment. Imagine that when we get together to determine our social contract, we make their decisions based on an uncertain position in society. In other words, we do not know where we will end up in this society, so their decisions are made behind a “veil of ignorance.” We do not know what gender, class, race or ethnicity we are, nor whether we are healthy, frail, highly educated, or a highschool dropout. Since no one would gain anything from arguing for a certain position, the principles agreed upon would be just. He asks that when we we set aside our moral and religious convictions for the purpose of the thought experiment, which principles will we choose? Rawl does not think we would choose utilitarianism, because behind the veil of ignorance, each of us might think that for all we know, we may be a member of the oppressed minority. Nor would we choose libertarianism, the principle that allows people to keep all the money made in a market economy. We may well end up being Bill Gates, but we could also end up as a homeless person, and we would not choose a system that would leave us destitute and without help. Rawl suggests that two principles would arise out of this hypothetical situation- that of equal basic liberties for all citizens (free speech, religion), and social/economic equality. The chapter goes on to discuss the limits of contracts. We assume that a contract is “fair” if all involved parties agree to it, but Rawl does not agree. To determine whether a contract is fair, he argues that we need some kind of “independent standard of fairness”. To illustrate the dilemma when determining the “fairness” of a consensual contract, Sandel describes a hypothetical contract: Suppose I agree to pay Professor Herwig $1000 to catch and deliver 100 lobsters to me. He delivers the lobsters, I eat (and enjoy) them, but then I refuse to pay. Professor Herwig might argue that I have an obligation to pay the $1000 for the benefit that I’ve received through my enjoyment of his lobsters. In a second situation, Professor Herwig and I make the same deal and he delivers my lobsters, but this time I say that I’ve changed my mind and refuse to pay. I haven’t received any benefit from our contract, but Professor Herwig might argue that I am obligated to honor our contract because of the efforts that he has made to uphold his side of the deal. One final version of the situation begins with the same deal, but before Professor Herwig has a chance to catch my lobsters, I call him and say that I’ve changed my mind and that I do not want his lobsters anymore. Do I still owe him $1000, even though he has put in no work and I haven’t reaped any benefit from our contract?

Sandel presents a situation where consent may not be enough to ensure that a contract is fair: two brothers are collecting baseball cards and like to trade with each other. The older brother knows more about the players and sometimes offers unfair trades to his younger brother, who consents to the trades because he doesn’t fully understand the inequality of the trade. This example illustrates how consent does not agree fairness and that it is not enough to create a “binding moral claim”. Sandel next explains Rawls’ idea of a perfect contract, in which each party is equal in power and knowledge, leaving no room for coercion or any kind of unfair advantage. In order to determine the principles to govern a society with, each person must act under a “veil of ignorance”, without knowing his/her place in society, values, or strengths. Rawls argues that a contract derives its moral force from two separate ideals, autonomy and reciprocity. However, in reality, most contracts cannot meet these ideals. For example, if I were to go up against a party with a stronger position, our agreement may not be wholly voluntary, or worse, coerced. Also, as in the case of the two brothers trading cards, agreements can be made that are not mutually beneficial for both parties due to the lack of equal knowledge. Is this fair? No, Rawls maintains that, “the fact of an agreement does not, by itself, guarantee the fairness of an agreement (Sandel).” This means that just because we made an agreement, does not mean that it was by any means fair or a truly “perfect contract.” Therefore, what does Rawls mean when he talks about creating a perfect contract? This goes back to Rawls’ idea of a hypothetical agreement, where the veil of ignorance would ensure a proper degree of equal power and knowledge that the original position would require. Meaning, that the people who would be deciding the laws of our society, unknowing of their own particular social status, would be unable to take advantage of a favorable bargaining position. The veil of ignorance would then enforce equality among the people and, as it is a “pure form of an actual contract,” it would also be more moral than any contract made outside the veil of ignorance. Now, under a veil of ignorance, what principles will emerge? As mentioned earlier, Rawls argues that we will most likely vote against Utilitarianism and libertarianism, and suggests that we would instead agree to equal basic liberties for all citizens. This is because under a veil of ignorance, Rawls believes that people would not sacrifice their fundamental rights and liberties for social and economic benefits. In regards to what we would choose to govern social and economic inequalities, Rawls allows for inequalities only in a system that works to the benefit of the least advantaged members of society. Therefore, we would still have the Bill Gates of the world, but only if the system in which he earned his money was one where the worse off in society were also benefiting--such as a progressive tax system where the rich would be taxed more and the money would go to education and welfare of the poor(not likely). This idea is based on Rawls’ “difference principle.” The “difference principle’s” main idea is that inequalities may be present in society, since this is reality, but only when, “the distribution of income and opportunity should not be based on factors that are arbitrary from a moral point of view (Sandel).” The difference principle also defends Rawls’ theory of justice against complaints such as the short story “Harrison Bergeron” and the limits of the meritocratic conception, which I will go into further detail about in the next section. Sandel goes even further into defining what Rawls would consider “arbitrary” by a moral point of view in the next section. In this section Sandel shows how Rawls would actually argue against not only a systems such as feudal aristocracies(caste systems) but also against free

markets. Rawls says that a free market may remedy some of the arbitrariness of the feudal aristocracy, but it is also arbitrary as those who are better off in society are still more likely to succeed than those born into poverty. The meritocratic conception, however, combats this critique of a free market. In a meritocratic conception, corrections for social and economic disadvantages are made, such as: equal education, Head Start programs, childhood nutrition and health care programs, etc. These corrections would then allow for equal opportunities to succeed--allowing all your runners to start from one starting line. Rawls, though in acknowledgement of the better circumstances, would also argue that a meritocratic conception is also unfair as things such as natural talents are morally arbitrary. Rawls then maintains that “we can’t be satisfied short of a more egalitarian conception(Sandel),” but critics of egalitarianism would assert that this concept is impossible as the only other alternative would be to “impose handicaps on the talented.” Rawls, however, would still maintain that the “difference principle” is better than all the other proposed systems as it “corrects for the unequal distribution of talents and endowments without handicapping the talented (Sandel).” There are two objections to this. The first objection would be incentives. What if the talented work less since they think their efforts are only going to help the least well off? Rawls’ reply to this is that the difference principle permits such income inequalities for the very sake of incentives, as long as the incentives benefit the least advantaged. An example of this would be to cut taxes for the wealthy in hopes of increasing the domestic product. The second objection is effort. Why should someone who worked hard not reap the benefits of their labor without concern for others? Rawls response it that, just like talents, effort may be a product of upbringing. This idea is very controversial, as many people would like to maintain that their achievements are reflective of their own hard work. In response to this objection, Sandel conducts his own unscientific survey to see if effort can be ascribed to upbringing. In this case, he uses the the belief some psychologist hold that birth order has an influence on effort and striving. Every year he asks how many students are first born, as it is said that first born children express more effort, and every year nearly 75-80% of the students raise their hands--does this prove Rawls theory? Who knows, but he may have a point. This theory also suggests that distributive justice is not based on “rewarding moral desert (Sandel).” Rawls even acknowledges that this goes against our usual way of regarding justice, but maintains that, even if we remove social and economic barriers of success, justice would still be happiness according to virtue, not based on moral deserts. Therefore, is it fair that others will still gain more in a system that does have social and economic barriers? Unlike Friedman. who believed we should embrace the idea that, “life is not fair,” in Rawls Theory of Justice he adamantly argues that “the way things are does not determine the way they ought to be (Sandel).” Rawls says that natural distribution should not be regarded as either just or unjust, nor is it unjust that people are born into higher classes in society than others, but these are simply natural facts that we should try and remedy. What is just and unjust is how institutions deal with these natural facts. Rawls proposes that we “share one another’s fate,” and “avail [ourselves] of the accidents of nature and social circumstance only when doing so is for the common benefit (Sandel).”

Quotes

1. “The fact that a Constitution is ratified by the people does not prove that its provisions are just.” 2. “Actual contracts carry moral weight insofar as they realize two ideals - autonomy and reciprocity.” 3. “The most obvious injustice of the libertarian system is that it permits distributive shares to be improperly influenced by these factors so arbitrary from a moral point of view.” 4. “There is a tendency for common sense to suppose that income and wealth, and the good things in life generally, should be distributed according to moral desert. Justice is happiness according to virtue… now justice as fairness rejects this conception.” 5. “Life is not fair. It is tempting to believe that government can rectify what nature has spawned. But it is also important to recognize how much we benefit from the very unfairness we deplore. there's nothing fair . . . about Muhammad Ali's having been born with the skill that made him a great fighter . . . It is certainly not fair that Muhammad Ali should be able to earn millions of dollars in one night. But wouldn't it have been even more unfair to the people who enjoyed watching him if, in the pursuit of some abstract ideal of equality, Muhammad Ali had not been permitted to earn more for one night's fight . . . than the lowest man on the totem pole could get for a day's unskilled work on the docks?” Questions 1. Why are obligated to obey the law? If you had to pick a team - John Locke’s tacit consent vs. Immanuel Kant’s hypothetical consent vs. John Rawls’s hypothetical social contract. 2. If we were able to create a social contract through the Rawls “veil of ignorance” method, do you think we would actually all agree on which principles are just? 3. Is it just that the plumber who exploited the old woman got charged and arrested given the consent of the contract by both parties? When is it appropriate (if ever) for an outside agent to intercede in contracts of this kind?...