Flashcards in introduction to liberal equality Deck (13):
ways to justify income inequalities: market justice
income isnt an issue of justice in the first place. your market value doesn't have to do w justice/equality. Just how the market works. A company offers you a certain amount based on how much they want you, you accept or you don't.
ways to justify income inequalities: Meritocratic justice
not just market justice. Your income is a relection of two things: your talent, and your amount of work. So, its not just your market value, it's what you deserve. Based on your merit.
ways to justify income inequalities: Liberal egalitarian justice
Given that your background shouldn't matter when it comes to income/power, luck (of being born rich etc) shouldn't matter. But what about natural talents? They're also a matter of luck; you don't deserve your IQ or health, you just have it (to a degree). Must exclude lucky in life privileges
Rawls' famous two principles of justice: 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.
Rawls' famous two principles of justice: second principle
social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they're both a) to the greatest benefit to the least advantaged and b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
first priority rule; priority of liberty
principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order and therefore liberty can only be resitrcited for the sake of liberty. Can't give up liberty for the sake of economic equality, though he believes its not right to have the rich get richer while the poor get poorer- the poor must be getting richer as wel
second priority rule; priority of justice over efficiency and welfare
the 2nd princple of jsutice is lexically prior to the principle of efficiency and that of maximizing the sum of advantages; and fair opp. is prior to the difference principle.
Rawls' reasoning for the validity of the second principle
the principle: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they're both a) to the greatest benefit to the least advantaged and b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
hypothetical situation where everyone is negotiating the rules of society without knowing beforehand what position in society you will end up in (original position; avoids egotistical bias, ensures rules are fair to all).
IF giving the more lucky/talented people more money leads to more money for those who are not, then it would be reasonable (from original pos.) to do so.
Max/min strategy; from orig. position, ppl will maximize the minimum (ensure that the min will be as high as possible)
Kymlicka's critique on Rawls' scheme of allowing for inequalities only if the poor benefit from it
the 2nd principle allows for subsidizing ppl's choices.
eg: two ppl, one (A) chooses to work hard and become full professor, the other (B) chooses not to and is happy w being assistant.
according to 2nd principle, A may only recieve a higher income if it also leads to rise in the salary of B. Is this just?
Dworkin's correction to rawls: endowment insenstive
natural luck alone shouldn't justify greater share of income, this prevents those w/o natural talents from envying the "lucky" ones
Dworkin's correction to rawls: ambition-senstive
Effort and ambition are justified grounds for a greater share, this prevents the hard working ppl from envying the less ambitious and lazy
Dworkin's correction to rawls: two concrete examples of policies based on endownment insenstive and ambition sensitive principles
Workfare: Those dependent upon welfare should provide services in return
Double insurance scheme: Basic healthcare for all, but private schemes when wanted (compare also three tiers pension schemes)