The principles of justice

1. The principles of justice John Rawls and the social contract argument

2. The choice of principles • How are we to decide on the principles which determine the justice of the distribution of rights and goods? • On what basis do we measure or judge whether some inequality in the distribution of goods is justified? • What is a just society and how do we know?

3. …principles • Questions demand an answer because it is glaringly obvious that there are inequalities within society.

4. …Rawls on justice • Justice as the first virtue of institutions • Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override...an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. Theory pp.3-4

5. …Rawls • What are the principles of social justice which are to be applied to the basic structure of society? • Basic structure - the major political, social and economic institutions which distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the distribution of goods (the way in the advantages of social co-operation are divided).

6. …Rawls • We need a procedure to decide on the principles. • We each have different interests and stakes. • It is not absurd to think that ultimately I’ll always try to get the rules which promote, or at least reflect, my particular interests. • Given the fact that we have different levels of resources and interests why should we expect to be able to agree on principles which we can all endorse as just or fair?

7. …Rawls • Perhaps we need to set aside the ways in which we differ to arrive at an agreement on social justice. • But how? • Let’s imagine that we have to reach an agreement about how society is to be run. • That's to say, we have to settle on the principles of justice – the rules of the game – and be prepared to stick to them.

8. …Rawls • If we have a dispute as participants in a game we appeal to an impartial set of rules or referee to settle the matter. • We’re living our lives in the middle of the game (i.e. society) without having settled on the rules. • So…

9. …Rawls • Imagine what we would have agreed to as the rules if we were setting up the game. • We can appeal to the notion of a hypothetical contract. • Rawls introduces the thought experiment of the original position.

10. …Rawls • Our actual interests, attitudes and position will influence our views of what is just. • This poses a problem if we aim to have principles which are impartial. • Rawls suggests that in decision making ignorance is a way of modelling impartiality. • If I don’t know what my interests, talents and (dis)advantages are, then I cannot opt for principles which favour my particular concerns.

11. …Rawls • Principles of justice are those which would be hypothetically agreed by individuals meeting in very special conditions. • The agreement, however, is one which you must reach from a position of radical ignorance about your future life in society. Deliberation takes place behind the veil of ignorance. Rawls terms this the Original Position. • In the Original Position you know that when you enter society, you will want certain primary goods - rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, income and wealth, self-respect. For these primary goods are supposed to be goods needed for carrying out any rational plan of life.

12. …Rawls • Rational people are supposed to want such goods whatever else they want. In the OP I don’t know what my actual goals and ends are, but I know that I (can) have such ends or conception of the good (thin theory of the good). • But otherwise you do not know what else you will want, or the other features of you that will distinguish you from other members of society. • You do not know what your own particular strengths, weaknesses and future social position will be, or exactly how developed that society will be - or what your own particular plan of life will be.

13. …Rawls • The rules of justice are what rationally self-interested agents would agree to if placed in the Original Position. • For people in the Original Position there is complete uncertainty about their future position in society. So everyone would, if they were rational, pick rules of justice that mandated an equal distribution of primary goods - except where inequalities maximised the position of the least well off.

14. …Rawls • The Two Principles concern the distribution of social primary goods – liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self respect. Latter crucial – those aspects of basic institutions essential for the citizen to possess a lively sense of their own worth as a person such as the institutional fact of equal basic rights and the recognition of this. • All social primary goods– are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favoured. Theory p.303. • Conflicts may arise concerning the distribution and ‘pay-offs’ between the various goods. There is a need to establish a lexical ordering among the different parts of the general conception.

15. … The principles • First Principle – Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. [Liberty Principle] • Second Principle – Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: • to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, [Difference Principle] and • attached offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. [Fair Opportunity Principle]

16. …Rawls • The structure of the Original Position: the veil of ignorance, a thin theory of the good, self-interest and mutual disinterest, primary goods and the strains of commitment. A one-off decision. • The Original Position as a device of representation – embodying equality and impartiality. Original position models moral equality. Ignorance of fate and rationality model fairness. The device helps to render our intuitions more precise – for example what is inadequate in certain conceptions of equality of opportunity – and to test opposing intuitions • Reflective equilibrium and the convergence of the arguments.

17. Rawls • The Choice of Principles and Lexical Ordering • The priority of liberty – who would risk being a slave given the finality of the choice? But would we not accept some restrictions? Does the priority reflect an unstated commitment to autonomy, one that would not be accepted by all. The need to distinguish a comprehensive and political sense of liberty?

18. Rawls: questioning the principles • Why the liberty principle? Why enjoy priority? • Who would risk being a slave given the finality of the choice? • But would we not accept some restrictions if there were suitable compensations?

19. …questions • The Difference Principle – why maximin? Rational choice in a one-off choice. From a position of radical ignorance you aim to ensure that the worst position is as good as possible – maximise state of the worst case scenario. • Need to stick to principles once ‘back’ in society: the need to address the strains of commitment. • But – an alternative from the perspective of the OP – constrained maximisation: 1. Liberty 2. Equality of opportunity 3. Social minimum 4. Utility maximisation

20. …questions • The possibility of (large scale) material inequalities undermines the real freedom of individuals. • For example, my access to education and the effectiveness with which I am able to pursue legal rights seems to be influenced by my wealth. What is the worth of my formal liberty?

21. …questions • The difference principle fails to compensate for natural disadvantages. • It allows unreasonable or lazy choices to be subsidised: the gardener and the tennis player • The difference principle undermines liberty by forcing people to dispose of their resources in ways which they have not chosen. • It threatens their rights and fundamental autonomy – c.f. Nozick

22. …questions • The principles of justice concern the distribution of the primary social goods. • In the Original Position each is ignorant of their particular conception of the good and their individual strengths and weaknesses. • Each can, though, judge that whatever their individual features it is better to have as many of the primary goods as possible. Whatever you want from life you’ll want as many as possible of these all-purpose means.

23. …questions • The primary goods are taken to be neutral between conceptions of a good life. • But are they neutral? • They seem to be drawn from and suited to societies committed to something like a liberal conception of the individual and a free market economy. No place allowed for the value of non-commercial, communal goods. • One (fast) response – principles are for liberal democracies and draw on the public political culture.

24. What next? • Read the notes on Nozick • Make sure you have read either the Miller or Wolff on justice. I recommend particularly Ch.5 of the Wolff, esp pp. 168-195. • Write an essay on the following: • Evaluate the claim that social justice means the equal distribution of rights and resources.