Ethics 5 Flashcards
What is John Locke’s view on consent?
He believes that we have given tacit consent, since we are enjoying the benefits of government (e.g. by traveling on the highway), thus this implicitly consents us to the law.
What is a social contract? Who thought of it?
The social contract is a hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality (thus we if would not know how we would end up in the world we would choose it to be equal). It was created by John Rawls.
What are the two priniciples of justice that emerge from the social contract?
- Equal basic liberties for all citizens (i.e. freedom of speech, regligion)
- Social and economic equality (since he believes that the distribution of income should not be based on arbitrary factors based on a moral point of view).
Why may consent not be enough to create morally binding obligations?
Some agreements are not mutually beneficial, others obligate to repay a benefit simpy on the grounds of reciprocity even without contract. These are the moral limits of consent.
Why is consent not necessarily a condition of moral obligation?
If the mutual benefit is clear enough the moral claims of reciprocity may hold even without an act of consent.
What is John Rawls veil of ignorance?
All people are biased by their situations, so how can people agree on a “social contract” to govern how the world should work.
Philosopher John Rawls suggests that we should imagine we sit behind a veil of ignorance that keeps us from knowing who we are and identifying with our personal circumstances. By being ignorant of our circumstances, we can more objectively consider how societies should operate.
Two primary principles supplement Rawls’ veil of ignorance: the liberty principle and the difference principle.
According to the liberty principle, the social contract should try to ensure that everyone enjoys the maximum liberty possible without intruding upon the freedom of others.
According to the difference principle, the social contract should guarantee that everyone an equal opportunity to prosper. In other words, if there are any social or economic differences in the social contract, they should help those who are the worst off. And, any advantages in the contract should be available to everyone.
So, according to Rawls, approaching tough issues through a veil of ignorance and applying these principles can help us decide more fairly how the rules of society should be structured. And fairness, as Rawls and many others believe, is the essence of justice.
What is John Rawls response when you claim that some people whould prefer an unequal world?
Unless they know (which they can’t because of the veil of ignorance) to be lovers of risk, they would not make risky bets with such high stakes.
What is the difference principle of Rawls?
It corrects for the unequal distribution of talens and endowments without handicapping the talented. By encouraging the gifted to develop and exercise their talents, but with the understanding that the rewards these talents reap in the market belong to the community as whole.
What are the three alternative theories of distribution justice? Why does Rawls disagree with them?
- Feudal/Caste system (fixed hierarchy based on birth)
- Libertairian (free market with formal equality of opportunity)
- Meritocratic (free market with fair equality of opportunity)
He argues that these three theories are arbitrairy on a moral point of view, either birth, social/economic advantages, or natural talents and abilities.
What are the two main objections of Rawl’s case of the difference principle?
- Incentives: it can be argued that incentives are needed, the difference principle does provide the incdntives that are needed to improve the lot of the least disadvantaged.
- Effort: it does not reward effort, however Rawls argues that effort may be a product of favourable upbringing, thus it is morally arbitrary.
