Robot Druggie

JUSTICE 7 JUSTICE CRITERIA ....................................................................................................................................... 3 OUTLINE FOR JUSTICE ARGUMENT. .......................................................................................................... 4

We all understand the language of justice and fairness, but philosophers have given a rather precise formulation of justice. Justice theory does not refer to law enforcement or legal issues. Legal issues can often be adjudicated using justice theory, but justice theory is broader. JUSTICE is, in the end, about treating people or things the same or differently. But in applying criteria in computer ethics, the relevant differences are not usually directly about people. Applying justice theory is very useful when someone is assuming or stating that something about a case makes things equal or that something makes things different. The something is often not actually referring to people but to important other considerations. Think of applying Justice as trying to compare apples and oranges, sometimes you need to see the important difference between the apple and the orange, and sometimes you need to pay attention to the fact that they are both the same: just fruit.

EXAMPLES: • cell phones versus laptops • speaking in public versus posting on Facebook • owning software versus owning hardware

Often, it is the medium of technology that can make the big difference and someone is failing to recognize this.

EXAMPLE (where people come in more directly, but the emphasis should be on actions): According to recently proposed laws, all sex offenders would be denied social networking access. But our laws usually label an 18 year old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend the same as a 50 year old man raping a 2 year old. We want to say their behavior should be treated differently, not the same.

It is these kinds of considerations where things are wrongly equated or differentiated that makes justice theory very useful. Really discussing in detail the way two things are being wrongly equated or wrongly differentiated can be a very useful ethical approach. Sometimes we mistakenly lump tech considerations together when we should not. Or we want to see the latest innovation as somehow different from the way the world was before, when it really should be recognized as similar. Often, what we assume to be a rights issue is instead a justice issue. Students often think of discrimination as a rights issue, but rights theory does discriminate, it must discriminate, at the very least, between the rights of children and the rights of adults. Sometimes special rights apply to special persons, such as positive rights of redress or

1

for special needs. Rights is not accurately described as equal. If you want to make claims of equality or special needs, etc., then use justice theory.

The general definition of justice is: JUSTICE: treat equals equally, unequals unequally Notice how this definition does not specify people, it merely states that if we are fair, we treat whatever as equal when it should be seen as equal, and different when it should be seen as different. The word should is the important term here. Should tells us we are making a claim about ethics, specifically, about what is fair.

There is a traditional division between three forms of justice: compensatory, retributive, and distributive. You should know this division for exams, but in applying justice to cases, just use distribution. Why? Simply, you distribute compensation, you distribute punishment. 3 FORMS OF JUSTICE

1. COMPENSATORY-fair compensation for loss due to wrong action of others. 2. RETRIBUTIVE-fair punishment or penalties for wrong-doers 3. DISTRIBUTIVE-fairly distribute social & economic benefits and burdens

This last one, DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE,(distribute benefits and burdens equally to equals and unequally to unequals) is very important to political philosophy and to ethics in business and the professions. The definition of distributive justice, means that whatever your criteria for distribution is, you should use that criteria evenly. Justice Theory was systematically treated by the philosopher Aristotle. He divides justice criteria according to the forms of government that exemplify that distributive criteria. Here are the definitions and characteristic political states for his forms of distributive justice. Notice how these forms of justice do indeed often disagree. WHEN DISCUSSING JUSTICE, DO NOT MENTION THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT. The listings of forms of government is just to give you a sense of how Aristotle formulated the different criteria of justice. Do not mention the forms of government in your case analyses.

1. EGALITARIAN- there are no relevant differences Distribute benefits and burdens equally This form often applies when you are looking at cases where race and religion are factored into how people are treated, such as cases of discrimination, and you think those race/religion, etc. factors should not have been considered. In other words, there was unfair treatment because everyone should have been treated equally and they were not. Using Egalitarianism is tricky. We are very often using the six other criteria to show things should have been treated the same. That sounds like egalitarianism, since it is about treating things the same. Best to reserve egalitarianism for when you want to emphasize that the case has nothing to do with merit, nor with any of the other 6 criteria. The example of race or religious discrimination is just such an example. We want to stress that there should be no relevant differences of race or religion. Merit has nothing to do with this decision.

2. ARISTOCRACY-Monarchies, etc. 2

Distribute benefits according to merit. School admissions, salaries of CEOs could be seen as merit. The idea of merit is that something should be treated differently because it deserves a difference. But you can earn punishment too. Merit is the catchall, when no other criteria apply, merit applies. It just means something about what you are comparing shows us why there should be sameness or difference. You then explain what that difference is. Again, merit does not have to have positive connotation, it can signal a bad difference. It all depends on the case. Merit does not have to be about people. We say, for example, This situation merits special attention. This is perfectly correct English, and it is not referring to people.

3. CAPITALIST 1. distribute benefits and burdens according to WORK EFFORT

Those who work hardest deserve more 2. distribute benefits and burdens according to PRODUCTIVITY

We all know co-workers who work hard but get very little done. They are just too slow, etc. Productivity would say we should count how much they get done, not how hard they work.

3. distribute benefits and burdens according to MARKET DEMANDS You have to explain what the market demands.

4. SOCIALIST-socialism can include work effort &/or productivity 1. distribute benefits according to NEED 2. distribute burdens according to ABILITY

Be cautious in using needs/ability, that you are not too closely mirroring utilitarianism.

In this course, merit, productivity, work effort, & market demands are usually important. MERIT is the catchall you should use when the other criteria seem not to apply.

7 JUSTICE CRITERIA Choose from the 7 criteria below as standards of Distribution:

1. there are no relevant differences (specify EGALITARIANISM) Distribute benefits and burdens EQUALLY

2. distribute benefits and burdens according to MERIT 3. distribute benefits and burdens according to WORK EFFORT 4. distribute benefits and burdens according to PRODUCTIVITY 5. distribute benefits and burdens according to MARKET DEMANDS 6. distribute benefits according to NEED 7. distribute burdens according to ABILITY.

Whichever of the 7 criteria you choose, you must explain why this criteria is better than criteria that was used instead. You must give arguments for both sides.

3

OUTLINE FOR JUSTICE ARGUMENT. 1.Define JUSTICE: Justice demands that we treat equals equally and unequals

unequally. (just copy/paste the definition) 2. Give a general statement of the unfairness (or fairness) of the case. 3. Give some idea of who is doing the distribution of judgment in the case. (Be careful, a

party being compared in the case cannot be the one doing the comparing.) 4. State whether equals should be treated equally or whether unequals should be treated

unequally. 5. Give your criteria (can be more than one) for why equals should be treated equally or

whether unequals should be treated unequally. 6. Explain how your criteria fit. 7. COUNTERARGUMENT: Give an argument for WRONG criteria that people would

likely or have proposed. 8. Explain why criteria you chose fits better, and why it is ethically better.

4