Rawls' Theory of Justice Flashcards

Question

what is the 1st principle of justice?

Answer 1

each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all

Answer 2

“political liberty and freedom of speech and assembly; liberty of conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person, which includes freedom from psychological oppression and physical assault and dismemberment; the right to hold personal property and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by the concept of the rule of law” (Rawls, TJ, 1999)

Answer 3

the first covers the constitutional elements by guaranteeing the equal basic rights & liberties needed to secure the fundamental interests of free & equal citizens principle is distinctive because it requires fair value of the political liberties, which is a subset of the basic liberties this requirement means that it is insufficient for all citizens to be able to vote (formal equality) but they also have to be able to exercise a similar amount of influence over the political sphere (substantive equality), which does not immediately follow from having the right to vote, as demonstrated in real life examples of the rich having disproportionate political influence through exercising “quiet politics” (Culpepper, 2011)

Answer 4

social & economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: a. they are to be attached to offices & positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity b. they are to be the greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society (difference principle)

Answer 5

a kind of ‘maximin’ principle where inequalities are justified through mechanism of incentive inequality regulates the distribution of wealth & income & is a key defining feature of Rawls’ political philosophy - allows for some social inequalities on the grounds that those inequalities help improve the total welfare & specifically the welfare of the least well-off can be interpreted as expressing the positive ideal of social unity where everybody contributes in order to further the social good

Answer 6

maximin strategy 'strains of commitment' publicity, self-respect & the stability requirement

Answer 7

describing the parties’ choice as a rational choice subject to the reasonable constraints imposed by the OP allows Rawls to invoke the theory of rational choice & decision under conditions of uncertainty in rational choice theory there are a number of potential “strategies” “maximin”: - directs that we play it as safe as possible by choosing the alternative whose worst outcome leaves us better off than the worst outcome of all other alternatives - to follow this strategy, Rawls says you should choose as if your enemy were to assign your social position in whatever kind of society you end up in under conditions of complete uncertainty of probabilities, as in the OP, Rawls argues that given the gravity of the choice & the fact that it’s not repeatable, it’s rational for parties to choose the principles of justice over other principles of average or aggregate utility by using the maximin strategy - because even if the worst transpires, justice as fairness, unlike utilitarianism, guarantees an adequate share of primary goods, equal basic liberties & fair equal opportunities 3 conditions must be met to make it rational to follow the maximin strategy in the OP 1. there must be no basis upon which to make estimates of probabilities 2. the choice elected by the maximin strategy is acceptable & people can live with it 3. all other alternatives have worse outcomes that would be unacceptable to live under

Answer 8

1. there must be no basis upon which to make estimates of probabilities 2. the choice elected by the maximin strategy is acceptable & people can live with it 3. all other alternatives have worse outcomes that would be unacceptable to live under

Answer 9

Rawls’ parties are “risk-averse”, otherwise they would consider taking a chance on the riskier but potentially more rewarding outcomes provided by the principle of utility (Harsanyi, 1975) Rawls denies that the parties are inherently risk-averse; rather he admits that it is rational for them to choose as if they were risk-averse under the highly exceptional circumstances of the OP - it is rational in some circumstances, the OP being one such circumstance, to choose conservatively to protect certain fundamental interests against loss or compromise Rawls himself admits that “it is not, in general, a suitable guide for choices under uncertainty” (Rawls, 1999) - maximin is an irrational strategy under most circumstances of choice uncertainty, particularly under circumstances where we will have future opportunities to recoup our losses & choose again. But these are not the circumstances of the OP

Answer 10

choice in the OP is an agreement & involves certain ‘strains of commitment,’ assumed by all to comply with the principles they agree to this argument depends on the concept of a ‘well-ordered society’ which is a society in which everyone willingly accepts & knows that everyone else accepts the same conception of justice these principles are (1) known about & willingly accepted by all, (2) successfully realised in political & social institutions & are generally complied with by citizens & (3) citizens are morally motivated to comply by their sense of justice (Rawls, TJ, 1999) the requirement for parties to choose principles for a well-ordered society means they must choose principles that they sincerely believe they will be able to accept, endorse & willingly comply with under conditions where these principles are generally enforced - Rawls contends that these ‘strains of commitment’, created by the parties’ agreement, strongly favour the principles of justice over other principles such as utility

Answer 11

principles of justice justified because they are chosen in the OP framework with publicity & self-respect, both of which invoke the stability requirement stability requirement states that for the hypothetical parties in the OP to agree on principles of justice, there must be a high likelihood that real persons, given human nature & general facts about social & economic co-operation, can also agree & act on the same principles & that a society structured by these principles is feasible & can endure Rawls contends that utilitarianism & other conceptions are not likely to be freely accepted by many citizens when made fully public under the conditions of a well-ordered society under the publicity condition, justice as fairness generally engages citizens’ sense of justice & remains more stable than other alternatives - the principles of justice are designed to advance every citizen’s position reciprocally; those who are better off do not achieve their gains at the expense of the less advantaged - “since everyone’s good is affirmed, all acquire inclinations to uphold the scheme” (Rawls, 1999) publicity condition also crucial from the social bases of self-respect - these principles, when publicly known, give greater support to citizens’ sense of self-respect than utilitarian principles - being regarded by others as a free & independent person of equal status with others is crucial to the self-respect of persons who regard themselves as free & equal members of a democratic society - justice as fairness, by affording & protecting the priority of equal basic liberties & fair equal opportunities for all, secures the status of each as free & equal citizens

Answer 12

difference principle allows for too little inequality difference principle allows for too much inequality neglects sources of injustice involves unacceptable infringements on liberty

Answer 13

people choose to spend their time differently so they should be entitled to the consequences of their choices tennis player vs gardener example (Kymlicka)

Answer 14

make leisure a primary social good; since the just distribution is assessed with respect to primary social goods, we would find TP, who enjoys a lot of leisure, no longer in the worst-off group

Answer 15

but wasteful leisure activities e.g. gambling could compromise the agent’s overall endowment of primary social goods e.g. Avid Gambler (AG) but always loses on his gambles. He is impoverished as a result. While he has lots of leisure, his endowment of other primary social goods is very low & as a result of his behaviour, G would be required by the difference principle to support his welfare. This is an undesirable situation

Answer 16

two versions: 1. second principle itself permits too much inequality 2. Difference Principle wrongly interpreted to permit more inequality than it does ‘formal Equality of Opportunity’ - non-discrimination on the basis of gender, race, disability Rawlsian ‘Fair Equality of Opportunity’ (Fair EO) - equally talented & equally motivated have equal chances. Social class shouldn’t influence chances 1. tension within Fair EO - social class influences development of talent & motivation 2. tension with the ‘moral arbitrariness’ argument that set up the OP? Talents affect chances even though their distribution is morally arbitrary Fair EO is too weak a requirement - one’s level of motivation or talent can be affected by one’s social class Dworkin (1981): the difference principle is insufficient for achieving equality - some people are extremely unlucky (e.g. severely ill or disabled) such that they need a considerably greater share of of primary goods to achieve a reasonable life - Rawls’ difference principle addresses natural inequality only insofar as it mitigates the worst of its effects by ensuring that the worst-off group, measured in primary social goods, are as well off as possible - it still means that there may be some people who are very badly off in virtue of natural disadvantages who do not get any extra help in view of this

Answer 17

1. second principle itself permits too much inequality 2. Difference Principle wrongly interpreted to permit more inequality than it does

Answer 18

justice is socio-political so coming up with principles based on the political sphere alone is inexhaustive ‘personal is political’ - justice involves more than rules of socio-political institutions; relevant questions for the ‘private’ sphere, including the family “[the principles] do not apply directly to [the family’s] internal life but they do impose essential constraints on the family as an institution and guarantee the basic rights and liberties and fair opportunities of all its members” (Rawls, 2001) - constrain but do not directly regulate family structure

Answer 19

principles of justice are only meant to regulate the basic structure, not personal conduct function of the principles are: (1) to provide a basis for shared agreement (2) to give space to citizens to pursue their own conceptions of good (‘moral division of labour’) (3) to provide a background of justice

Answer 20

if principles of justice only apply to the basic structure, Rawlsian justice provides no room for regulating interpersonal relationships e.g. interpersonal acts of racism Rawlsian justice allows for a market system but market systems, by construction, seek inequality - Mills' racial critique - Matsuda's feminist critique

Answer 21

libertarians object that the Difference Principle involves unacceptable infringements on liberty e.g. may require redistributive taxation to the poor, and Libertarians commonly object that such taxation involves the immoral taking of just holdings

Answer 22

Nagel's critique of ideal theory Mills' racial critique (2009) Matsuda's feminist critique (1986)

Answer 23

“ideal theory enables you to say when a society is unjust, because it falls short of the ideal. But it does not tell you what to do if, as is almost always the case, you find yourself in an unjust society, and want to correct that injustice” (Nagel, 2003) implausibility of the OP to produce an unanimous choice due to unavoidable bias Nagel argues that Rawls’ does not just eliminate morally irrelevant features like sex, race & class position from the original position, but he also rules out morally relevant knowledge like one’s conception of the good - by restricting the basis of the hypothetical agreements in this way, one may lose some of its justifying power - Nagel’s argues that “the suppression of knowledge required to achieve unanimity is not equally fair to all the parties, because the primary goods are not equally valuable in pursuit of all conceptions of the good” (Nagel, 1973)

Answer 24

Rawls’ framework is largely silent on matters of racial equality & doesn’t produce a rectificatory outcome as it can’t provide us a tool to justify a ‘non-ideal theory’ & model our real life society Rawls’ ignorance of racial injustice in his work in focusing on an ideal theory suggests that these principles are pre-emptive, not rectificatory - pre-emptive precautions to prevent injustices entering the “basic structure” of a society are not the same as rectificatory measures aimed at correcting them once they have already entered Eurocentrism of Rawls’ work: - not merely that he focuses on Europe, but that he also focuses on Europeans & the problems that affect the white population & not - in his native United States - the problems of blacks & Native Americans - limited in use when it comes to remediating racial injustice contemporary inclusion of non-white & formerly colonised in the original construct is only nominal & legacies of colonialism & slavery are not taken into account in an ideal theory’s conceptualisation of the crucial issues distinction between ideal ideal theory (ideal theory in ideally just circumstances) & rectificatory ideal (what is ideally required to remedy past injustices)

Answer 25

Rawls’ “theory of justice” fails because of its central choice of abstraction as a method of inquiry - abstraction as a methodology encompasses the belief that visions of social life can be constructed without reference to the concrete realities of social life - abstraction as a methodology is criticised by feminist scholars because abstraction is the first step down the road of androcentric ignorance use of veil imagery is itself interesting - in much of veil imagery - the bridal veil, the Muslim veil - it is women-as-object behind the veil - behind Rawls’ veil, woman-thinking, the terrifying Other, is abstracted out feminism suggests a methodology - consciousness raising - for derivation of first principles - through the shared experience of women's lives & through concrete struggle against patriarchy, feminists are deriving a conception of the good

Rawls' Theory of Justice Flashcards

(49 cards)