lecture 2: justice

Question 1

Concept

Answer 1

-A concept is the basic structure of a value or principle – such as justice, or liberty. It is broad and capacious, encapsulating many different meanings.
We should all kind of agree on a concept what it means.

we want our concepts to match our intuitions.

Question 2

Conception

Answer 2

-A conception is the particular version of a concept supported by an author, honing it down to a subset of meanings and characteristics – as in a ‘civic republican conception of liberty.

Different conceptions can thus be compatible with the same broad concept

Question 3

Justice

Answer 3

a moral duty sufficient to justify state coercion towards that end.

Question 4

Fundamentals: The Good

Answer 4

-Utility (nut) – “ends” (Utility is tied to the ultimate outcomes or goals of an action rather than the means used to achieve them).
To put it briefly, the good is the satisfaction of rational desire”

Question 4

Fundamentals; The Right

Answer 4

-De-ontology – “means”
-Procedure
tied to the procedure and fair processes
–> When you say something is right you are saying there are conflicting claims and one of them is right suggesting one is right and the others are not.
–> Procedure is the way by which we determine rightness or wrongness.
we care a lot about the procedure

Question 4

Justice as fairness ; Rawls: original position

Answer 4

-The original position imagines people choosing principles of justice, behind a veil of ignorance

Question 4

justice as fairness: Rawls: veil of ignorance

Answer 4

-a) without any knowledge of ascriptive characteristics (race, sex, religion, social class, intelligence, etc). So decision is not biased by advantage. (i.e. their interests).
-b) they don’t know their conception of the good. (What makes life worth living) (i.e. their
values).

Question 5

primary goods

Answer 5

know they are going to have preferences but dont know yet which ones, but they know they would want primary goods: things that every rational man is presumed to want

Question 5

outcome of Rawls concept of justice and fairness

Answer 5

The hypothetical contract: gives you a fair procedure because the things that are not fair are kept away. A procedure is determining what is right.

Question 5

imperfect procedural justice

Answer 5

while there is an independent criterion for the correct outcome, there is no feasible procedure which is sure to lead to it –> trial of an innocent man

Question 6

perfect procedural justice

Answer 6

Perfect procedural justice: you get rid of things that bias the contract

Question 7

What would these people choose according to Rawls

Answer 7

1) “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all” (ones you don’t know where your standing you will pick liberties for yourself)

*2) “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
-(2a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and (maximin)
-(2b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity”.

ranked from priority 1,2a,2b

Question 8

Regarding natural inequalities

Answer 8

-“The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts.
What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.

Question 9

objections: justice as fairness

Answer 9

-Risk aversion: people wont play it save to take the risk to not be the best off.

• the priority of liberty: Rawls assumes that liberty has a priority over economic, and security concerns
• Redistribution: to what extent and for whom?
• the hypothetical contract: not a binding contract no one really agreed to it.
• Egoism: Rawls refers to self-interest without the people knowing what their interest is going to be.
• the private sphere: why is justice limited to the public sphere?

Question 10

Nozick justice as entitlement
moral basis 1:

Answer 10

the world is given and we have various forms of property.
- we begin with holdings
protecting these holdings mean JUSTICE

the state is there just to protect these holdings not anything more

Question 11

Nozick justice as entitlement
moral basis 2:

Answer 11

separateness of persons
(everyone has their own talents, achievements)

the outcome is: no taxation
if the wealthy want to give money to the poor it should be voluntarily

Question 12

According to Nozick what does it mean to own (justly/legitimately)

Answer 12

three ways: (acquisition, transfer, rectification)

Question 13

acquisition

Answer 13

-Assume an uninhabited land. Its resources may be acquired, as long as no one is made worse off through this acquisition.
-A variation of John Locke’s defence of property rights

Question 14

transfer

Answer 14

Assuming you (legitimately) owned property, you can do what you like with it
-The same is true of labor. I can exchange my labor for money, which I can use as I like.
-Assuming all transfers are voluntary, they are all legitimate. This is the principle of the market

Question 15

rectification

Answer 15

*3) Rectification
-Unjust transfers must be rectified (especially when those generate new entitlements)
*We are real estate agents and we all sell houses, but an earthquake falls, but one of us did know it was going to happen, it isn’t redistribution it is just correcting little errors.

Question 16

what does it mean to own (justly/legitimately) nozick critique

Answer 16

C) Acquisition:
Why should we believe that land is initially unowned?
-What if instead it was ‘commonly’ owned?
-(And if so, wouldn’t we need a logic of distribution, c.f. Rawls?)

D) Transfer: Given that world history has not been a story of justice, doesn’t this invalidate the principle?
E) Rectification: Even if you could rectify present injustices of transfer, there is no way to rectify past ones.

Question 17

what to take away from Nozick?

Answer 17

-1) Radical amounts of inequality could be justified.
-2) State action should be kept to a minimum.
What state functions are actually justified by the principles of jutice?
-3) Distribution is not a matter of justice

*Also, he makes a compelling case for ‘starting point’ theories as opposed to ‘end-state’ theories. –> procedural justice

Ownership is not binary, there are a lot of varieties of ownership

Question 18

justice 3; as desert

Answer 18

-Desert is implicitly attractive: people should get what they deserve. This is what justice means.
-Logic of markets: hard-work and talent are rewarded. (higher prices for better quality etc)

BUT: what determines what they get, the individual or the tastes of the market? Is it just that some people have the kinds of talents people reward.

for Rawls talents are arbitrary when it comes to justice