Political Science 1020E Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Justice As Fairness, Medical Model, Sexual Orientation
19 Sep 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Justice 2
John Rawls
Rawls on Justice
Principles for What?
Choosing principles of justice for institutions
Basic structure of society
Why the basic structure? because it has huge effects on our life prospects
How to Model Impartiality
Self-interest plus ignorance= impartiality
Wolff’s first example: How to referee a game when you do not know which team you want to win
Wolff’s second example: You have amnesia and body bandages; now design a society
Think About It
In the original position, behind th veil of ignorance, what principles of justice would you choose and why?
What POPs Know
They are in circumstance of justice
They are moderately self-interested and have conflicting goals
Moderate scarcity: between scarcity and abundance
What Else POPs Know
They have a sense of justice
They have a conception of the good
This is a so-called ‘thin-theory of the good”: they want primary goods
Primary goods are liberty, opportunities, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect
Constraint on Choosing
Physical constraints
Logical constraints
Formal constraints; Publicity, Finality
How Would POPs Choose
Which decision-rule would they use
Maximax? no
Utility Maximization? no
Maximin? yes: focus on the worst-off
Which Principles Would be Chosen by POPs?
Principle of greatest equal liberties
Principle of fair equality of opportunity
Difference principle
Lexical priority rules
Why chose Greatest Equal Liberties?
Veil of Ignorance makes it irrational to discriminate against anyone
Maximize your share of primary goods, so…
The more basic freedoms, the better
Why Choose the Difference Principle?
Maximin is the rational choice
Finality and risk aversion
Objection: ‘maximization with a floor’ seems more desirable than the Difference Principle
Intuitive Equality of Opportunity Argument
Prevailing view: Equal Opportunity
Choices and circumstances
Natural inequalities are as morally arbitrary as social inequalities
Allow inequalities only when they benefit the least advantaged
Rawls in a Nutshell
Morally arbitrary difference -social and natural- should benefit the socially and naturally unlucky
Injustice is inequality that does not benefit everyone
Legitimate inequalities benefit the worst-off group
Rawls and His Critics
Nozick’s Entitlement Theory
Distribution need not fit a pattern
Patterns: need, ability, desert
Nozick’s theory is historical and unpatterned
The Wilt Chamberlain Argument
Distribution D1 is just
All steps from D1 to D2 are voluntary
Therefore, D2 is just (even though it’s unequal)
Liberty upsets patterns
Nozick’s Object to Rawls
Difference principle is a patterned principle
Free exchanges will create a new distribution
Difference Principle will require interference in people’s lives
Taxation
Rawls: taxes on wealth need not be invasive
Nozick: taxation is on a par with forced labour
Rawls: redistribution can increase the freedom of the poor
Assessment of Nozick
Correctly emphasizes the value of making our own choices
But fails to deal fairly with unequal circumstances
So, Wilt Chamberlain (and we) lack absolute property rights because such rights would prevent us from
compensating unnerved inequalities
Justice for Everyone, Everywhere
Everyone? Race, Disability, LGBTQIA Liberation
Oversights of Justice
The history of political thought overlooks whole areas of social concern
Example: John Stuart Mill rejected racism but accepted a role for colonialism
Who has been overlooked? Women, racial and ethnic minorities, disabled, LGBTQ, foreigners,
immigrants, and future generations
Du Bois on Justice and Race
“The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the colour line”
Du Bois objects to skin colour and hair texture as grounds for excluding people from sharing in ‘the
opportunities and privileges of modern civilization’ (Du Bois, 1990)
Racism and Justice
What racism is
Permanent difference as the rationale for using power to treat other races unjustly
Anti-racism: challenging race as a category
Disability
Medical model of disability: disability should be treated medically
Social model of disability: society disables people
What counts as a disability is sometimes controversial; for example, deafness
LGBTQIA Liberation 1
Ancient Greeks versus monotheism
LGBTQIA as a new identity group
Sexual orientation
Gender Identity
LGBTQIA Liberation 2
Overcoming legal discrimination and homophobia
The problem of state-sponsored homophobia
Canada: 80% acceptance (up 10% from 2007 to 2013)
Everywhere? Global Justice
Global Child Mortality and Inequality
Global child mortality: 6 million child deaths annually
Cosmopolitanism
Human moral equality
One perspective of justice for all of us
National borders have no basic moral significance
One Proposal: extend principles of justice to the entire world (example: focus on the globally least
advantaged)
Nationalism
Common sense view about duties to address global poverty
Duties of justice apply within countries
National borders do have basic moral significance
Three Defences of Justice-based Duties to the Near and Dear
Societies are schemes of social cooperation; justice is about distributing the cooperative surplus
Value of state membership: shares citizenship
Value of shared nationality: Identity based on shared history, language, culture
W7L$Justice$2
Friday,(December( 15,(2017
12:34(AM
Document Summary
Why the basic structure? because it has huge effects on our life prospects. Wolff"s first example: how to referee a game when you do not know which team you want to win. Wolff"s second example: you have amnesia and body bandages; now design a society. They are moderately self-interested and have conflicting goals. This is a so-called thin-theory of the good : they want primary goods. Primary goods are liberty, opportunities, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect. Veil of ignorance makes it irrational to discriminate against anyone. Objection: maximization with a floor" seems more desirable than the difference principle. Natural inequalities are as morally arbitrary as social inequalities. Allow inequalities only when they benefit the least advantaged. Morally arbitrary difference -social and natural- should benefit the socially and naturally unlucky. Injustice is inequality that does not benefit everyone. All steps from d1 to d2 are voluntary. Therefore, d2 is just (even though it"s unequal)
