Philosophy 1304: Morality and Justice

Rawls on Socioeconomic Justice: A Theory of Justice

NOTE: You may disregard sections 5 and 40 in Rawls, to cut down on the reading.

• Question: what should the basic structure of social, political and economic institutions be like in a just society? In other words, what are the fundamental principles of social justice that should structure a good society?

• Hypothetical Thought Experiment: Imagine yourself as a rational agent in the 'original position' I describe for you. You have to try to choose, from behind a 'veil of ignorance', the type of society you'll be placed in. All you know is that you want to protect your interests, whoever you turn out to be in that society. Which society would it be rational for you in this situation to choose? Why or why not? Consider some possibilities:

(A) A society in which white men are privileged with a right to vote and to own property, neither of which is allowed for women or non-whites, who are blocked from political participation, higher education, and many professions, with little social mobility.

(B) A utilitarian society in which aggregate social utility is maximized; policies are always geared toward maximizing the sum total of happiness in the society.

(C) A purely market-driven society in which (i) basic liberties are equally protected--there is no racial, gender or religious discrimination or persecution, and (ii) there is virtually unlimited social mobility for those who have certain talents that happen to be economically rewarded in the society (e.g., the talents of a corporate lawyer or investment banker) and who happen to have access to relevant opportunities, such as high-quality education. The society thus allows for virtually limitless accumulation of wealth for such people.

(D) A perfectly egalitarian society in which (i) basic liberties are equally protected and (ii) wealth and income are distributed in a perfectly egalitarian way: everyone is given the highest level of wealth and income compatible with everyone else's being at the same level.

(E) A society in which (i) basic liberties are equally protected and (ii) everyone is guaranteed genuine fair equality of opportunity, and (iii) everyone is guaranteed a basic social minimum if they're willing to work, but the society is not perfectly egalitarian, with everyone exactly at the same level of wealth. In fact, it may be largely market-driven. But the structure will constrain the operations of the free market to benefit the worse off people in these ways.

• Rawls' Two Central Claims:

• People choosing from behind _____________________, in the __________________, would choose something like the structure of society represented in E, over all the others.

• This fact about hypothetical choice under these idealized circumstances implies that the principles implicit in E are therefore the most _________ ones.

How does Rawls argue for the second claim, i.e., that the principles people would choose in the original position are thereby the ones that are just? ANSWER: By combining a contractualist idea with a certain equivalence claim:

Contractualist Starting Point: In trying to discover what JUSTICE is, we're looking for a legitimate set of principles to govern the basic structure and institutions of a free society--a society that is a system of cooperation among free and equal persons. And a set of principles for such a society is morally legitimate IF AND ONLY IF the principles can be justified to each person in the society. Only then will it be reasonable to expect them all to accept such principles and to live under such a system. In other words, JUST principles are the ones we could REASONABLY EXPECT ALL REASONABLE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT as governing them.

Question: How can a set of principles meet this condition? ANSWER:

Equivalence Claim: a set of principles can be justified to each and every person as something it is reasonable for him or her to accept IF AND ONLY IF these principles

___________________________________________________

Question: Why does Rawls assert this equivalence? ANSWER:

Choosing principles out of rational self-interest but from behind the veil of ignorance is equivalent to choosing principles with full knowledge in a way that fully respects all other persons as free and equal beings: if you choose in a self-protective way while not knowing who you will turn out to be, that is the same as choosing in a way that is fair and respectful of everyone's equal value, which in turn will result in something that everyone can reasonably accept. So as long as we accept the following axiom, we get the Equivalence Claim above:

AXIOM: Freedom and Equality: all members of society are free and equal persons (in the sense of having equal basic human worth and dignity), so any legitimate set of principles must treat people as free and equal beings.

So here's the point: The original position, with the veil of ignorance, models people's equal basic value into the choice situation for choosing the principles, making it a fair one that respects everyone's equal human worth. It does this by screening off morally arbitrary factors from the decision procedure.

*Again, self-interested choice from behind the veil of ignorance is EQUIVALENT to fair choice from the perspective of justice, taking everyone's equal worth seriously. (I'll explain this in lecture with examples.)

• What, more specifically, are the two principles Rawls thinks we'd choose from the 'original position' (which I tried to capture informally with E above)?

• P1: Each person is to have an equal right to _____________________

________________________________. What will this entail, specifically?

• P2: Socioeconomic structures must be designed to allow general significant inequalities only where they are (1) attached to positions and offices open to all, with fair equality of opportunity, and are (2) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage--in particular, benefiting the ______________ more than alternative schemes (the 'difference principle').

Make sure you understand what this second principle means and how it is supposed to work.

• Does our actual socioeconomic system in this country satisfy Rawls' conditions? Why or why not?

(If you don't think we have the kinds of problems I'll mention, you might have a look at The Working Poor: Invisible in America, by David Shipler; Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich; and There Are No Children Here, by Alex Kotlowitz, as well as his more recent books.)