Ethics 3

Notes on Rawls John Rawls – Theory of Justice

Concepts/Terms

Egalitarianism

A theory that encourages some type of equality of individuals. Individuals are all equal moral agents. Because of this, they should treated equally; either economically, politically, socially, etc.

Rawls requires an equal right to the most extensive system of basic liberties for each person that is compatible with similar liberties being available to others But inequality is ok in certain situations, namely, when the inequalities (or unequal distribution) benefit the least advantaged. Private property is also ok because it can sometimes benefit the least advantaged

Distributive Justice

Normative principles designed to allocate goods.

The principles vary in numerous dimensions. They vary in what goods are subject to distribution (income, wealth, opportunities, etc.); on the nature of the subjects of the distribution (natural persons, groups of persons, reference classes, etc.); and on what basis the goods should be distributed (equality, according to individual characteristics, according to free market transactions, etc.).

Procedural

There is a procedure, similar to the social contract, that helps establish "justice as fairness" 1) An interpretation of the initial situation and the problem of choice posed there. 2) a set of principles which, it is argued, would be agreed to.

Liberalism

complicated

In two different ways, liberals accord liberty primacy as a political value. First, liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in ‘a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man’ (Locke, 1960 [1689]: 287). Mill too argued that ‘[T]he burden of proof is supposed to with those

who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favor of freedom…’(Mill, 1991 [1859]: 472). This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle (Gauss, 1996: 162-166): freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would limit freedom. It follows from this that political authority and law must be justified, as they limit the liberty of citizens. Consequently, a central question of liberal political theory is whether political authority can be justified, and if so, how.

Nature of Rawls’ ‘moral agent’

Rational, mutually disinterested, not envious, and capable of a sense of justice

Mutually disinterested is like Kantian autonomy. Each person has their own set of ends, and these ends may conflict, so mutual disinterest will allow me to pick principles that will ensure there are no constraints on anybody’s ends. Determine principles that don’t promote my own specific ends.

Original Position

A hypothetical situation where individuals are placed in an initial, completely free (no government, no laws), completely equal position.

It’s a situation where individual would develop or choose social principles (principles of justice) that would facilitate their personal principles/ends. Their choices are subject to certain constraints, specifically about the situatedness of the agent. This is the veil of ignorance

Veil of Ignorance

A device that restricts an agents rational choices given that they are ignorant of their sex, race, social position, economic position, natural attributes, and most importantly their conception of the good and their specific ends.

The VI gets people away from a state of specific self-interest, towards one of mutual disinterest. There won’t be an issue of negotiation since every is basing their determinations of the principles of justice on the same information and rational attitudes. A procedure of reasoning w/o personal biases

Justice as Fairness

the idea that “the principles of justice are agreed to in an initial situation that is fair”

“… assuming that the original position does determine a set of principles (that is, that a particular conception of justice would be chosen), it will then be true that whenever social institutions satisfy these principles those engaged in them can say to one another that they are cooperating on terms to which they would agree if they were free and equal persons whose relations with respect to one another were fair”

-

Primary Goods

Things that every rational person would want, regardless of their position in society. Divided into two broad categories: social and natural (65)

Social primary goods: liberties, opportunities, powers, wealth, self-respect Natural primary goods: health, intelligence, imagination The principles of justice are designed to ensure that there is an equal distribution of these goods.

What is a Principle of Justice?

A principle that rational, completely equal people would agree to that would promote their interests, in particular, their interests in acquiring primary goods

Principles of Justice

General Conception (Broadly)

Social goods ought to be distributed equally unless unequal distribution is to the advantage everyone On page 63, we see the first expression of the two principles. Part of the justification in the argument for why those two principles would be chosen is that we don't want to reward accidents of nature (ie. talents.)

First Principle

“Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties comparative with a similar system of liberty for all” (7)

Deals with liberty, and just distribution of social advantages: no disenfranchisement and no special treatment Equality in assigning basic rights

Second Principle

“Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantages, consistent with the just savings principle, and b) attached to offices and position open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity” (7)

the just saving principle says that the principles of justice, and any inequalities justified through it ought to be considered applicable and maintained through future generations deals with when inequalities are justified 2a is known as the difference principle

Finalized General Conception

“All social primary goods—liberty and opportunity, income and wealthy, and the bases of self- respect—are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored” (8-9)

Why Theory of Justice is deontological, not Utilitarian

Principles of justice are categorical imperatives I’d choose them regardless of the outcomes I would desire, since the place when I pick them, the op, I don’t know what outcome I want

Not Utilitarian . In equalities can’t be justified by appealing to their ability to promote the good of a majority.

Principles of justice and the inequalities they may justify have to be applied to everyone. And, since everyone is viewed as equal, with equal rights to pursue their own ends, it seems very unlikely that any group would sacrifice their own pursuits to satisfy those of others.

(OUTSIDE OF OUR EXCERPT)

Justification: Maximin Rule

Individuals will choose principles that offer the least bad alternative: they will choose principles the will leave the least advantaged individuals in the least unfortunate situations.

And: Gain Loss Table

Shows that although there are some situations with much higher gain, those situations have much worse losses. Given that individuals in the original position would not know where they fit in

society, or even what natural talents they had, reason and prudence would mandate choosing the principles which have the least bad outcomes.

Priority Rules: the principles of justice are ordered for a specific reason. Decreasing liberty cant’ be mitigated by increase economic goods.

The first principle comes first and liberty comes first.

1. liberty can only be restricted for the sake of liberty. A restriction on liberty must strengthen total system of liberty shared by all.

---less equal liberty must be accepted by those with less liberty

2. Justice comes before efficiency and welfare. so (b) takes priority over (a)

First Priority Rule

Equal distribution of liberty is the most important thing (first principle). Less then completely equal liberties can only happen in two cases,: benefit for the whole society, and its acceptable to everyone “The principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order and therefore liberty can be restricted only for the sake of liberty. There are two cases

a) a less extensive liberty must strengthen the total system of liberty shared by all b) a less than equal liberty must be acceptable to those with the lesser liberty

Second Priority Rule

Make sure that any inequalities are to the advantage of the least advantaged, then you can look to see if any change will raise the advantage of x without lowering the advantage of y. And start with an equal distribution of economic goods (including economic opportunity) before you start manipulating the situation to the benefit of the least advantaged. Priniplce of Efficiency: an arrangement of rights and duties is efficient if it’s impossible to change the rules to raise the expectations of any person, without lowering the expecations of another. The second principle of justice is lexically prior to the principle of efficiency and to that of maximizing the sum of advantages; and fair opportunity is prior to the difference principle. There are two cases

a) an inequality of opportunity must enhance the opportunities of those with the lesser opportunities b) an excessive rate of saving must on balance mitigate the burden of those bearing the hardship