Ideas about Justice

Ideas about Ideas about JusticeJustice

Aristotle Virtue JusticeKant Freedom JusticeRawls Freedom and Utilitarian JusticeNozick Freedom JusticeMacIntyre back to Virtue Justice

Three big themesVirtue EthicsUtilitarianismLibertarianism

Categories of JusticeJust DesertsDistributiveRetributiveCompensatory

Aristotle and JusticeAristotle and Justice Justice: giving Justice: giving

people what they people what they deservedeserve

Justice cannot be Justice cannot be “neutral” in this “neutral” in this sensesense

Who should be Who should be distributed distributed guitars? A=the guitars? A=the best guitar players!best guitar players!

Justice also involves Justice also involves teleological teleological reasoningreasoning

Telos=end, or goal, Telos=end, or goal, or purposeor purpose

So, what is the goal So, what is the goal of a guitar?of a guitar?

Treating people Treating people equally requires, in a equally requires, in a sense, unequal sense, unequal treatmenttreatment

Aristotle and Aristotle and GovernmentGovernment What is the telos of What is the telos of

government?government? A: to encourage the A: to encourage the

good life (a life of virtue)good life (a life of virtue) Who should hold offices? Who should hold offices?

Who should rule? Who should rule? A: those with civic A: those with civic

virtue, those skilled in virtue, those skilled in governancegovernance

Aristotle: the father of Aristotle: the father of political sciencepolitical science

““The polis is not an The polis is not an association for…association for…ending injustice. ending injustice. …The end and …The end and purpose of polis purpose of polis (government) is (government) is the good life.”the good life.”

Kant and JusticeKant and Justice

Kant respects human Kant respects human freedomfreedom

Rational beings are Rational beings are beings who can be beings who can be freedomfreedom

Everyone is an end, Everyone is an end, not a means to an not a means to an endend

How would Kant How would Kant answer the train answer the train dilemma?dilemma?

Do the right thing because Do the right thing because it’s right, not to gain it’s right, not to gain somethingsomething

We have a duty to do this? We have a duty to do this? How do we figure out the How do we figure out the

right thing? Pure reason! right thing? Pure reason! Ergo—everyone using pure Ergo—everyone using pure

reason will agree on same reason will agree on same right thing!right thing!

Implication: we create laws, Implication: we create laws, based on reason, which we based on reason, which we then have a duty to obeythen have a duty to obey

(Which can lead to moral (Which can lead to moral and social disasters? Nazis?)and social disasters? Nazis?)

Kant and SocietyKant and Society

It can’t be based It can’t be based on utility: on utility: everyone has a everyone has a different idea of different idea of happiness, right?happiness, right?

It must be based It must be based on freedom on freedom derived from derived from reasonreason

Three ModernsThree Moderns

Rawls, Nozick, and MacIntyreRawls, Nozick, and MacIntyre Have significant new approachesHave significant new approaches Which are related to past approachesWhich are related to past approaches And show the continuing openness of And show the continuing openness of

debatedebate Is that a good thing? After 2500 years?Is that a good thing? After 2500 years?

Rawls on the Just StateRawls on the Just State

John Rawls (1921 – 2002)John Rawls (1921 – 2002) A Theory of Justice A Theory of Justice (1971)(1971)

Rawls and JusticeRawls and Justice

Justice as fairnessJustice as fairness A just society is one run on just principlesA just society is one run on just principles A just society would be a fair societyA just society would be a fair society Fairness involves Fairness involves Distributive JusticeDistributive Justice

There is a There is a fair distribution fair distribution of primary “social of primary “social goods”goods”

wealth, wealth, opportunities, opportunities, liberties and privileges, liberties and privileges, bases of self respect (bases of self respect (e.g. equality of political e.g. equality of political

representationrepresentation))


What is a Fair Society?What is a Fair Society? Would a fair society would be one that Would a fair society would be one that

any rational, self-interested person any rational, self-interested person would want to join?would want to join?

Not quite. They will be biased to their Not quite. They will be biased to their own talents.own talents.


The Veil of IgnoranceThe Veil of Ignorance Suppose they chose from behind a Suppose they chose from behind a Veil of Veil of

IgnoranceIgnorance where they didn’t know what where they didn’t know what their talents were or where they would be their talents were or where they would be placed in society?placed in society?

They would choose a society that would be They would choose a society that would be fair to all because they’d have to live with fair to all because they’d have to live with their choicetheir choice

So, a fair society is one that any rational, So, a fair society is one that any rational, self-interested person behind the veil of self-interested person behind the veil of ignorance would want to joinignorance would want to join

Rawls asks, “What principles Rawls asks, “What principles of justice would people chose of justice would people chose at the founding of society?”at the founding of society?”

A hypothetical, not real, moment – but A hypothetical, not real, moment – but still a doable thought experiment.still a doable thought experiment.

A moment when people know nothing A moment when people know nothing about their future.about their future. Class or social status.Class or social status. Intelligence or other capabilities.Intelligence or other capabilities. Social place in terms of gender, race, etc.Social place in terms of gender, race, etc. Wealth.Wealth.


The Original PositionThe Original Position Rawls is a Rawls is a Social Contract TheoristSocial Contract Theorist In forming a social contract we decide In forming a social contract we decide

upon the basic structure of society, and upon the basic structure of society, and figure out what a just society would look figure out what a just society would look likelike

We do so as self-interested and rational We do so as self-interested and rational choosers, from behind the veil of ignorancechoosers, from behind the veil of ignorance

This choice position Rawls calls This choice position Rawls calls The The Original PositionOriginal Position

Rawls asks, “What principles Rawls asks, “What principles of justice would people chose of justice would people chose at the founding of society?”at the founding of society?”

A hypothetical, not real, moment – but A hypothetical, not real, moment – but still a doable thought experiment.still a doable thought experiment.

A moment when people know nothing A moment when people know nothing about their future.about their future. Class or social status.Class or social status. Intelligence or other capabilities.Intelligence or other capabilities. Social place in terms of gender, race, etc.Social place in terms of gender, race, etc. Wealth.Wealth.

Rawls on the Just SocietyRawls on the Just Society

The Original PositionThe Original Position How would we choose?How would we choose?

We are choosing fundamental social conditions We are choosing fundamental social conditions determining our life prospectsdetermining our life prospects

We get to choose just onceWe get to choose just once We would follow a We would follow a maximin maximin choice principle choice principle

choose the setup in which your worst outcome is choose the setup in which your worst outcome is better than your worst outcome in any other better than your worst outcome in any other setupsetup

We wouldn’t give up fundamental rights and We wouldn’t give up fundamental rights and libertiesliberties

Rawls and JusticeRawls and Justice

Two Principles of JusticeTwo Principles of Justice1.1. Each person has an equal claim to a fully Each person has an equal claim to a fully

adequate scheme of basic rights and liberties, adequate scheme of basic rights and liberties, compatible with the same scheme for allcompatible with the same scheme for all

2.2. Social and economic inequalities are to Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: satisfy two conditions: a.a. they are to be attached to positions and they are to be attached to positions and

offices open to all under conditions of fair equality offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; of opportunity;

b. b. they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society (advantaged members of society (The Difference The Difference PinciplePinciple))

Rawls on the Just Rawls on the Just GovernmentGovernment

Prioritizing the Principles of JusticePrioritizing the Principles of Justice There are really There are really threethree principles here: principles here:

Principle of LibertyPrinciple of Liberty Equality of OpportunityEquality of Opportunity Difference PrincipleDifference Principle

They can conflict. What happens in this They can conflict. What happens in this case?case? The Principle of Liberty must be satisfied before The Principle of Liberty must be satisfied before

any other principle. any other principle. Equality of Opportunity must be satisfied before Equality of Opportunity must be satisfied before

the Difference Principle.the Difference Principle.


The Difference PrincipleThe Difference Principle If primary social goods were distributed If primary social goods were distributed

evenly, we would have a perfectly evenly, we would have a perfectly egalitarian society.egalitarian society.

But there are good reasons for thinking But there are good reasons for thinking that everyone would be economically that everyone would be economically worse off in such a society. worse off in such a society.

One obvious reason is that incentives One obvious reason is that incentives are needed for people to work hard and are needed for people to work hard and use their talents to create wealthuse their talents to create wealth

Rawls: the Difference Rawls: the Difference PrinciplePrinciple

The Difference PrincipleThe Difference Principle Taxation is a means of redistributing Taxation is a means of redistributing

wealth for the benefit of the least well-off wealth for the benefit of the least well-off But, But, everyone, including the least well-off, everyone, including the least well-off,

would suffer with excessive taxation would suffer with excessive taxation On the other hand, too little taxation and On the other hand, too little taxation and

the least well-off suffer economically the least well-off suffer economically Between these extremes there will be an Between these extremes there will be an

optimum taxation level, according to the optimum taxation level, according to the difference principle difference principle

Nozick and JusticeNozick and Justice

Robert Nozick (1938 – 2002)Robert Nozick (1938 – 2002) Anarchy, State, and Utopia Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974)(1974)

Nozick and KantNozick and Kant

Justice as RespectJustice as Respect Recall Immanuel Kant’s Recall Immanuel Kant’s Principle of EndsPrinciple of Ends

Act to treat others as means not just as endsAct to treat others as means not just as ends People can’t be used as ‘resources’People can’t be used as ‘resources’ A government committed to ‘distributive justice’ A government committed to ‘distributive justice’

must treat its citizens as means to a distributive must treat its citizens as means to a distributive end (i.e. increase taxes to get rid of poverty)end (i.e. increase taxes to get rid of poverty)

For Kantians, this action would be unethicalFor Kantians, this action would be unethical Therefore distributive justice can’t be an ethical Therefore distributive justice can’t be an ethical

goalgoal

Nozick on the Minimal Nozick on the Minimal StateState

Government should not redistribute the Government should not redistribute the goods of a societygoods of a society

Distributive Justice DJ assumes wealth is Distributive Justice DJ assumes wealth is just a natural resourcejust a natural resource Nozick thinks that justice in wealth involves 3 Nozick thinks that justice in wealth involves 3

factors:factors:1.1. Justice in original acquisition Justice in original acquisition

2. Justice in transaction 2. Justice in transaction

3. No wealth is held justly except by combinations 3. No wealth is held justly except by combinations of 1 & 2of 1 & 2

Redistribution of wealth can’t produce justiceRedistribution of wealth can’t produce justice

Nozick on the Minimal Nozick on the Minimal StateState

Distributive Justice vs. EntitlementsDistributive Justice vs. Entitlements There may be unjust holdings because of There may be unjust holdings because of

past history but that doesn’t make a belief in past history but that doesn’t make a belief in entitlement (compensatory justice) incorrectentitlement (compensatory justice) incorrect

Is there a fair way to correct past injustices?Is there a fair way to correct past injustices?

Slavery?Slavery?

Lost property—internment?Lost property—internment?

Nazi policy?Nazi policy?

Government plays a minimal roleGovernment plays a minimal role

Is there any hope for Is there any hope for justice? MacIntyre on justice? MacIntyre on today’s Moral Ordertoday’s Moral Order

Alasdair Macintyre (1929 – )Alasdair Macintyre (1929 – ) After Virtue After Virtue (1984)(1984)

MacIntyre on the Moral MacIntyre on the Moral OrderOrder

The current moral disorderThe current moral disorder Imagine a catastrophe where most Imagine a catastrophe where most

scientific knowledge and the habits of scientific knowledge and the habits of science were lostscience were lost




Then suppose the survivors tried to Then suppose the survivors tried to reconstruct science from the leftover reconstruct science from the leftover fragmentsfragments




Then suppose the survivors tried to Then suppose the survivors tried to reconstruct science from the leftover reconstruct science from the leftover fragmentsfragments

They’d probably produce gibberish that They’d probably produce gibberish that ‘looked like’ science but wasn’t‘looked like’ science but wasn’t


The current moral disorderThe current moral disorder MacIntyre thinks there’s been a slow MacIntyre thinks there’s been a slow

catastrophe where most catastrophe where most moralmoral knowledge has been lostknowledge has been lost




We have tried to reconstruct morality We have tried to reconstruct morality from the fragmentsfrom the fragments




We have tried to reconstruct morality We have tried to reconstruct morality from the fragmentsfrom the fragments

We have produced gibberish that ‘looks We have produced gibberish that ‘looks like’ morals but isn’tlike’ morals but isn’t


The current moral disorderThe current moral disorder Since moral arguments are gibberish they Since moral arguments are gibberish they

can’t be conclusive in deciding what to docan’t be conclusive in deciding what to do But we But we must must decide what to do so we adopt decide what to do so we adopt

another methodanother method We use emotions, passions, self interest, …We use emotions, passions, self interest, … Since we have incompatible desires our Since we have incompatible desires our

politics has become politics has become

civil war carried on by other civil war carried on by other means’ means’


Bring back virtue!Bring back virtue! The Aristotelian version of ethics with an The Aristotelian version of ethics with an

end towards which we can aim makes end towards which we can aim makes sense of ‘ought’ statements.sense of ‘ought’ statements.

‘‘We ought to do X to achieve this end’ is We ought to do X to achieve this end’ is understandableunderstandable

‘‘We ought to do X … just because’ is notWe ought to do X … just because’ is not

Absent any conception of what human beings are Absent any conception of what human beings are supposed to become if they realized their supposed to become if they realized their telostelos, , there can be no ethical theory, because it simply there can be no ethical theory, because it simply has no purpose. For people with no destination, a has no purpose. For people with no destination, a road map has no value road map has no value

MacIntyre and Moral MacIntyre and Moral ObligationsObligations

Each of us has a telosEach of us has a telos More than that, overlapping More than that, overlapping

teleological ends, freely teleological ends, freely chosen. This is what it chosen. This is what it means be a person today.means be a person today.

Several “stories” can claim Several “stories” can claim us”: individual, cultural, us”: individual, cultural, familial, national. familial, national.

We are part of a national We are part of a national story, too. story, too.

Ergo: we are tied to our Ergo: we are tied to our history—its glories and history—its glories and injustices.injustices.

Ideas about Justice

Documents

Transcript of Ideas about Justice