Rawls' Theory of Justice: Balancing Liberty and Equality
P
h
i
l
o
s
o
p
h
y
2
1
9
Justice as Fairness/Justice as
Holdings: Rawls/Nozick
L
i
b
e
r
t
é
,
É
g
a
l
i
t
é
,
F
r
a
t
e
r
n
i
t
é
This is the national slogan of France,
coined during the French revolution.
It nicely embodies the ideals of that
revolution, as well as those of our own, at
least as they are articulated in
The
Federalist Papers
.
I invoke them at the start of this week’s
discussion as a suggestive question:
Where is the brotherhood?
J
o
h
n
R
a
w
l
s
(
1
9
2
1
-
2
0
0
2
)
Rawls was one of the most
prominent American
philosophers of the 20th
century.
Working primarily in the
areas of political philosophy
and ethical theory, Rawls
was one of the foremost
defenders of
Political
Liberalism
: the idea that
government should be
neutral with regard to the
question of what constitutes
a good life.
A
T
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
J
u
s
t
i
c
e
(
1
9
7
1
)
This was the book that made Rawls famous.
It was an attempt to at a project very similar to that of
The Federalist Papers
, namely, to argue for a principled
reconciliation of liberty and equality.
Rawls’s strategy was to address the question of
distributive justice
(how to parcel out the burdens and
benefits of our social/political existence) with the help of
a thought experiment designed to engage our instincts
about fairness, within which parties would hypothetically
choose mutually acceptable principles of justice.
Rawls’s thesis was that his principle of justice was the
one that rational agents would choose.
R
a
w
l
s
’
s
S
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
P
o
i
n
t
Rawls starts with
Rawls starts with
a minimal definition of human
a minimal definition of human
society
society
: an association organized by a shared
: an association organized by a shared
understanding of justice the aim of which is to
understanding of justice the aim of which is to
advance the good of the members.
advance the good of the members.
As Rawls immediately acknowledges, there is a
As Rawls immediately acknowledges, there is a
fundamental tension in such a society.
fundamental tension in such a society.
On the one hand, individual members have good
reason to pursue the good of society; after all, most of
the goods we desire we cannot secure on our own.
On the other hand, people are naturally interested in
maximizing their own good, putting them in inevitable
conflict with those around them.
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
v
e
J
u
s
t
i
c
e
A question which immediately arises is,
how do we deal with these (potentially
frequently) competing views of the good.
This is a question of
distributive justice
(J
d
), which Rawls defines as "a set of
principles for choosing between the social
arrangements which determine th[e]
division [of goods].”
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
T
h
e
o
r
y
Rawls considers a number of ethical and
political accounts of J
d
but ultimately advocates
a version of contract theory.
Rawls belongs, then, to a familiar tradition. He is
a descendent of Locke and Rousseau.
Most importantly, like traditional contract theory,
the force of the contract Rawls introduces comes
from the assumption that it is agreed to by free,
rational creatures.
T
h
e
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
Rawls is definitely not just repeating the tradition he
Rawls is definitely not just repeating the tradition he
inherits.
inherits.
Rather than place this agreement in some fictional “state
Rather than place this agreement in some fictional “state
of nature,” a supposition which may do nothing more
of nature,” a supposition which may do nothing more
than institutionalize a particular historical conception of
than institutionalize a particular historical conception of
the individual, Rawls locates his agreement behind what
the individual, Rawls locates his agreement behind what
he calls the "
he calls the "
veil of ignorance
veil of ignorance
."
."
Behind the veil, Rawls argues, the rational decision
Behind the veil, Rawls argues, the rational decision
procedure would include assuming that you will be
procedure would include assuming that you will be
disadvantageously placed. As a result, the contract
disadvantageously placed. As a result, the contract
would embody structural principles to insure that any
would embody structural principles to insure that any
distribution of goods would benefit the fortunate and the
distribution of goods would benefit the fortunate and the
unfortunate equally.
unfortunate equally.
T
w
o
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
o
f
J
u
s
t
i
c
e
Parties in the original position, behind the veil of
Parties in the original position, behind the veil of
ignorance, rationally evaluating their potential
ignorance, rationally evaluating their potential
exposure to inequalities of distribution, would
exposure to inequalities of distribution, would
agree, Rawls argues, to a contract that
agree, Rawls argues, to a contract that
embodies
embodies
two substantive principles of justice
two substantive principles of justice
:
Equality Principle
: every one engaged in or affected by an
institution has an equal right to the most complete liberty
compatible with the liberty of all;
Difference Principle
: The only non-arbitrary was to assign
benefits and burdens to members of a society is to assign
them in such a way as to benefit everyone.
These two principles make up what Rawls
These two principles make up what Rawls
calls “
calls “
Justice as Fairness
Justice as Fairness
.”
.”
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
s
a
s
F
a
i
r
n
e
s
s
Rawls goes on to develop an account of the
structural principles of a democracy consistent
with this theory. Such a government would have
four branches:
Allocation: maintain economic competition and efficiency;
Stabilization: maximize employment and protect free choice
of occupation;
Transfer: respond to social need;
Distribution: preserve just distribution of wealth by limiting
excessive accumulation of wealth from generation to
generation and taxation.
R
o
b
e
r
t
N
o
z
i
c
k
(
1
9
3
8
-
2
0
0
2
)
Nozick was a lifelong
colleague of Rawls at Harvard.
He established his reputation
by writing
Anarchy, State and
Utopia
, a response to Rawls’s
A Theory of Justice
.
With this book, Nozick became
a prominent proponent of
Libertarianism
: a range of
political philosophies which
share a commitment to
individual liberty at the
expense of civil society.
A
n
a
r
c
h
y
,
S
t
a
t
e
a
n
d
U
t
o
p
i
a
Nozick’s argument in ASU explicitly
appeals to Locke’s
Treatise
, particularly its
reliance on the claim that a right to
property is a “natural” or basic one.
In it he argues that a distribution of goods
is just if brought about by free exchange
among consenting adults and from a just
starting position, even if large inequalities
subsequently emerge from the process.
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
M
i
n
i
m
a
l
i
s
m
In ASU, Nozick puts his ideological cards
on the table. He's a
political minimalist
:
only the minimal state can be justified.
In this context, J
d
has a much more
restricted sense than in Rawls's theory.
What is fundamental are holdings
(property) and transfers of holdings.
Distribution is defined relative to them.
E
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
T
h
e
o
r
y
Given his starting point, it should not be surprising
Given his starting point, it should not be surprising
that Nozick has a much different account of J
that Nozick has a much different account of J
d
d
than
than
Rawls.
Rawls.
Nozick's term for the theory of justice that is
Nozick's term for the theory of justice that is
operative from the assumption that holdings are
operative from the assumption that holdings are
fundamental is
fundamental is
Entitlement Theory
Entitlement Theory
(496c1-2).
(496c1-2).
ET has two main elements:
ET has two main elements:
Justice in acquisition;
Justice in transfer.
J
J
d
d
is derived from this theory, “A distribution is just if
is derived from this theory, “A distribution is just if
it arises from another just distribution by legitimate
it arises from another just distribution by legitimate
means” (c2), in other words by ET.
means” (c2), in other words by ET.
W
h
a
t
a
b
o
u
t
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
?
One obvious objection to this view points out
that a claim of "entitlement" may have
questionable historical ramifications (reparations
for slavery).
In this context, Nozick identifies a third element
of ET: J
ustice in Rectification
(497c2).
Nozick turns this weakness into a strength,
noting that in contrast to utilitarianism, which
focuses on the present, the entitlement theory is
historically sensitive.
F
o
c
u
s
i
n
g
o
n
E
n
d
-
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
The rest of the selection focuses on what Nozick
calls
“end-result” theories
, theories of J
d
which
evaluate distributive schemes on
consequentialist grounds.
His objection to these theories is that they would
require constant interference.
Individual qualities (skills, talents, ambitions)
would necessarily create imbalances and thus
would require constant readjustments to the
political structure.
John Rawls, a prominent American philosopher, introduced his theory of justice in his influential book "A Theory of Justice." He emphasized the importance of distributive justice and rational choices in shaping fair social arrangements. Rawls believed in a principle where rational agents would select just principles of justice, balancing individual liberty and equality in society.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Philosophy 219 Justice as Fairness/Justice as Holdings: Rawls/Nozick
Libert, galit, Fraternit This is the national slogan of France, coined during the French revolution. It nicely embodies the ideals of that revolution, as well as those of our own, at least as they are articulated in The Federalist Papers. I invoke them at the start of this week s discussion as a suggestive question: Where is the brotherhood?
John Rawls (1921-2002) Rawls was one of the most prominent American philosophers of the 20th century. Working primarily in the areas of political philosophy and ethical theory, Rawls was one of the foremost defenders of Political Liberalism: the idea that government should be neutral with regard to the question of what constitutes a good life.
A Theory of Justice (1971) This was the book that made Rawls famous. It was an attempt to at a project very similar to that of The Federalist Papers, namely, to argue for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality. Rawls s strategy was to address the question of distributive justice (how to parcel out the burdens and benefits of our social/political existence) with the help of a thought experiment designed to engage our instincts about fairness, within which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice. Rawls s thesis was that his principle of justice was the one that rational agents would choose.
Rawlss Starting Point Rawls starts with a minimal definition of human society: an association organized by a shared understanding of justice the aim of which is to advance the good of the members. As Rawls immediately acknowledges, there is a fundamental tension in such a society. On the one hand, individual members have good reason to pursue the good of society; after all, most of the goods we desire we cannot secure on our own. On the other hand, people are naturally interested in maximizing their own good, putting them in inevitable conflict with those around them.
Distributive Justice A question which immediately arises is, how do we deal with these (potentially frequently) competing views of the good. This is a question of distributive justice (Jd), which Rawls defines as "a set of principles for choosing between the social arrangements which determine th[e] division [of goods].
Contract Theory Rawls considers a number of ethical and political accounts of Jdbut ultimately advocates a version of contract theory. Rawls belongs, then, to a familiar tradition. He is a descendent of Locke and Rousseau. Most importantly, like traditional contract theory, the force of the contract Rawls introduces comes from the assumption that it is agreed to by free, rational creatures.
The Original Position Rawls is definitely not just repeating the tradition he inherits. Rather than place this agreement in some fictional state of nature, a supposition which may do nothing more than institutionalize a particular historical conception of the individual, Rawls locates his agreement behind what he calls the "veil of ignorance." Behind the veil, Rawls argues, the rational decision procedure would include assuming that you will be disadvantageously placed. As a result, the contract would embody structural principles to insure that any distribution of goods would benefit the fortunate and the unfortunate equally.
Two Principles of Justice Parties in the original position, behind the veil of ignorance, rationally evaluating their potential exposure to inequalities of distribution, would agree, Rawls argues, to a contract that embodies two substantive principles of justice: Equality Principle: every one engaged in or affected by an institution has an equal right to the most complete liberty compatible with the liberty of all; Difference Principle: The only non-arbitrary was to assign benefits and burdens to members of a society is to assign them in such a way as to benefit everyone. These two principles make up what Rawls calls Justice as Fairness.
Politics as Fairness Rawls goes on to develop an account of the structural principles of a democracy consistent with this theory. Such a government would have four branches: Allocation: maintain economic competition and efficiency; Stabilization: maximize employment and protect free choice of occupation; Transfer: respond to social need; Distribution: preserve just distribution of wealth by limiting excessive accumulation of wealth from generation to generation and taxation.
Robert Nozick (1938-2002) Nozick was a lifelong colleague of Rawls at Harvard. He established his reputation by writing Anarchy, State and Utopia, a response to Rawls s A Theory of Justice. With this book, Nozick became a prominent proponent of Libertarianism: a range of political philosophies which share a commitment to individual liberty at the expense of civil society.
Anarchy, State and Utopia Nozick s argument in ASU explicitly appeals to Locke s Treatise, particularly its reliance on the claim that a right to property is a natural or basic one. In it he argues that a distribution of goods is just if brought about by free exchange among consenting adults and from a just starting position, even if large inequalities subsequently emerge from the process.
Political Minimalism In ASU, Nozick puts his ideological cards on the table. He's a political minimalist: only the minimal state can be justified. In this context, Jdhas a much more restricted sense than in Rawls's theory. What is fundamental are holdings (property) and transfers of holdings. Distribution is defined relative to them.
Entitlement Theory Given his starting point, it should not be surprising that Nozick has a much different account of Jdthan Rawls. Nozick's term for the theory of justice that is operative from the assumption that holdings are fundamental is Entitlement Theory (496c1-2). ET has two main elements: Justice in acquisition; Justice in transfer. Jdis derived from this theory, A distribution is just if it arises from another just distribution by legitimate means (c2), in other words by ET.
What about History? One obvious objection to this view points out that a claim of "entitlement" may have questionable historical ramifications (reparations for slavery). In this context, Nozick identifies a third element of ET: Justice in Rectification (497c2). Nozick turns this weakness into a strength, noting that in contrast to utilitarianism, which focuses on the present, the entitlement theory is historically sensitive.
Focusing on End-Results The rest of the selection focuses on what Nozick calls end-result theories, theories of Jdwhich evaluate distributive schemes on consequentialist grounds. His objection to these theories is that they would require constant interference. Individual qualities (skills, talents, ambitions) would necessarily create imbalances and thus would require constant readjustments to the political structure.
