Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick...
-
Upload
aubrey-lodes -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick...
![Page 1: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare:
IntroductionNanoethics Lecture IV
Roderick T. Long
Auburn Dept. of Philosophy
![Page 2: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Distributive JusticeHow should the benefits of, and/or
the control over, nanotechnology be distributed?
Moral issue: principles
Practical issue: implementation
![Page 3: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
John Rawls (1921-2002)Most influential theory
of distributive justice in recent decades:
A Theory of Justice (1971)
Political Liberalism (1993)
Justice As Fairness (2001)
![Page 4: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
John Rawls (1921-2002) A version of contractarianism
(standard of rightness is what rational people do, or under appropriate conditions would, agree to) but influenced by Kant (principles must be universalizable and treat people as ends, not mere means)
![Page 5: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Rawls’ Veil of IgnoranceConsiderations that block consensus
on principles of justice are also unfair to rely on in choosing such principles: how they impact
- one’s interest group
- one’s conception of the good
![Page 6: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Rawls’ Veil of IgnoranceChoose principles of
justice as though you don’t know your interest group (race, gender, income, age, health, etc.) and conception of the good (religious, moral, and lifestyle preferences)
![Page 7: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Rawls’ Veil of IgnoranceMaximin: choose the option whose worst
possible outcome is preferable to the worst possible outcome of any rival option.
Not a general principle of choice, but a cautious principle for life-affecting decisions.
(Does this favor risk-averse conceptions of the good?)
![Page 8: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance
Choose the pie whose smallest piece is bigger than the smallest piece of any rival pie
![Page 9: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance
Egalitarian Rawlsian Utilitarian choice choice choice
![Page 10: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Rawls’ Veil of IgnoranceDifferent conceptions of the common
good:
Utilitarian: aggregate advantage (allows sacrifice of few to many)
Rawlsian: mutual advantage (no sacrifice)
![Page 11: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Rawls’ Veil of IgnoranceThe size of a pie of material wealth
(and thus the size of its smallest piece) can be affected by how the pieces are distributed (e.g., incentives)
The size of a pie of liberty cannot be.Hence: different principles for liberty
and for wealth
![Page 12: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Rawls’ First Principle of Justice
Maximum liberty for each, so far as is consistent with equal liberty for all
![Page 13: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Rawls’ Second Principle of Justice
Socioeconomic inequalities permissible only if:
a) open to all
b) beneficial to the least advantaged
![Page 14: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Question of ImplementationWhich politico-
economic system in fact best satisfies these principles?
Capitalism?Socialism?something
else?
![Page 15: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Question of ImplementationRawls: largely a
question for social scientists, not moral philosophers
Ethics sets the standards
Economics figures out how to meet them
![Page 16: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Some Critics of Rawls
Robert Nozick Michael Sandel Susan Okin
![Page 17: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Criticisms of Rawls Why does hypothetical consent
matter?
![Page 18: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Criticisms of Rawls Why does hypothetical consent
matter? Are omitted considerations crucial to
our identity (Sandel) and/or to our rights (Nozick)?
![Page 19: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Criticisms of Rawls Why does hypothetical consent
matter? Are omitted considerations crucial to
our identity (Sandel) and/or to our rights (Nozick)?
Does the enforcement of the 2nd principle violate the liberty protected by the 1st?
![Page 20: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
A Feminist Criticism Insofar as Rawls is concerned with
the distribution of benefits and burdens within society rather than within the family, doesn’t his approach fail to address:
a) women’s disproportionate burden of labor within the household
b) the family’s role as the context in which expectations of justice are learned?
![Page 21: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
An Anarchist CriticismDoesn’t the implementation of
Rawls’ principles presuppose without argument the legitimacy of the State?
Why would people behind the veil of ignorance agree to give this one institution powers denied to all others?
![Page 22: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
More Criticisms of Rawls Is the 1st principle too
skeptical/relativist about the good?
![Page 23: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
More Criticisms of Rawls Is the 1st principle too
skeptical/relativist about the good? Does the 2nd principle require too
little equality?
![Page 24: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
More Criticisms of Rawls Is the 1st principle too
skeptical/relativist about the good? Does the 2nd principle require too
little equality? Does the 2nd principle require too
much equality?
![Page 25: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
More Criticisms of Rawls Is the 1st principle too
skeptical/relativist about the good? Does the 2nd principle require too
little equality? Does the 2nd principle require too
much equality? Does the 2nd principle treat persons
as mere means?
![Page 26: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Some of Rawls’ Replies Given human fallibility, unfair to
insist on any conception of the good one wouldn’t agree to behind the Veil of Ignorance.
![Page 27: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Some of Rawls’ Replies Given human fallibility, unfair to
insist on any conception of the good one wouldn’t agree to behind the Veil of Ignorance.
Given dependence of assets (natural or external) on luck, unfair to insist on pre-Veil rights to these
![Page 28: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Possible Counter-repliesWhy does human fallibility impact
conceptions of the good but not conceptions of justice?
![Page 29: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Possible Counter-repliesWhy does human fallibility impact
conceptions of the good but not conceptions of justice?
Why do considerations of luck affect one’s assets but not one’s human status?
![Page 30: Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070307/551b65e1550346d6338b4879/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Rawls vs. CriticsAnd the debate
continues ….