Quiz 1

Question 1

What was John Rawls famous for?

Answer 1

Theory of ‘justice as fairness’

Question 2

What did John Rawls propose?

Answer 2

That principles of normative justice can be discovered using a thought experiment known as ‘the Original Position’

Question 3

The Original Position

Answer 3

Imagine people are going to live in a society together. They have to decide how certain societal goods – wealth, power, rights, privileges, etc. – should be distributed amongst themselves.

Their decision will be the social contract

Question 4

To ensure a fair decision-making process, Rawls asks us to suppose that people in the Original Position have the following traits:

Answer 4

1. Rationally self-interested

Each person cares about how well-off they will be in this new society & has the rational capacity to know what’s in their own best interest

2. Must decide from behind a veil of ignorance

Each person lacks knowledge about the social position they will occupy in society, once the social contract is ratified.
Each person ignorant of their own skills, talents, values, class, gender, race, etc.

Question 5

Whatever rules people in the Original Position would pick =

Answer 5

distributive justice (justice as fairness)

Question 6

Jeremy Bentham

Answer 6

Proposed utilitarianism as a universal theory of moral and political justice in his work, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789)

Question 7

Utilitarianism

Answer 7

The right thing to do is whatever produces the most utility (happiness / lack of suffering)

The best distribution is that which maximizes overall happiness
Not necessarily that which maximizes the most resources to be distributed

Question 8

The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility

Answer 8

The observation that the more of a given resource one possesses, the less valuable each individual unit of that resource often becomes

Question 9

Egalitarianism

Answer 9

The doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

Question 10

He’s pretty much Robin Hood

Peter Singer

Answer 10

Australian moral philosopher and leading utilitarian

Argues that current amount of economic inequality in the world is morally unjust

Justice requires some redistribution of wealth from rich to poor

We who are wealthy (by global standards) have a moral obligation to donate significant portions of our wealth to charity

Question 11

How does Singer use the terms: ‘absolute affluence’ and ‘absolute poverty’?

Answer 11

Absolute affluence: Having wealth in significant excess of basic needs
- Extra wealth spent on luxuries: “stereo systems, video-cameras, and overseas holidays”

Absolute poverty: Not having enough wealth to meet basic human needs
- “Probably the principle cause of human misery today”

Question 12

Under what conditions might utilitarianism support an equal distribution of wealth?

Answer 12

Diminishing marginal utility provides utilitarians with a reason to value equality instrumentally

(Equality as a means of producing the most happiness)

Question 13

Robert Nozick

Answer 13

American political theorist; colleague of Rawls

Right-libertarian; critic of the welfare state

Offers critique of Rawlsian distributive justice

Question 14

What does Nozick think of the term “distributive justice”? Why?

Answer 14

‘Distributive justice’ ≠ neutral term
Rather, it’s politically biased

People like Rawls who speak of ‘distributive justice’ are stacking the deck in favour of a particular approach and answer to questions of economic justice

‘Distribution’ implies a distributor
- Someone who has authority to enforce some favoured distribution pattern
- Collectivist bias – begins on the assumption that resources fundamentally belong to the collective; not to individuals

Question 15

How should we choose to distribute goods and resources according to a utilitarian and a rawlsian?

Answer 15

Utilitarian: In whatever way maximizes utility

Rawlsian: In whatever way is ‘fair’
Fair = what people would choose in the Original Position;
- Equal basic liberties
- Inequality to everyone’s advantage & open to all

Question 16

What verdict do Rawls’s two principles of justice render upon the actual inequality we see in the world?

Answer 16

1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all

Question 17

Would people in the O.P. actually select Rawls’s two principles of justice?
Or would they select some other principle (such as utilitarianism)?

Answer 17

Rawls thinks they would NOT select utilitarianism

Though utilitarianism guarantees maximum collective happiness, it doesn’t guarantee any particular distribution of that happiness

(A distribution maximizing utility could be one in which all that utility goes to a privileged minority)

Behind the veil of ignorance, utilitarianism is too risky a gamble for rationally self-interested individuals

Question 18

Distributive Justice v. Justice in Holdings

Answer 18

Distributive Justice:
- Starts with the collective (Top-down)
- Measures justice by outcomes
(A just economy is one where everyone ends up with a just amount of resources
E.g: egalitarian; resource maximization; maximin)

Justice in Holdings:
- Starts with particular individuals (Bottom-up)
- Measures justice by processes
(A just economy is one where everyone acquires resources by just means
E.g: Did she come by her resources honestly? Or did she steal them?)

Question 19

What are the 3 components of ‘Justice in Holdings’?

Answer 19

1. Justice in Acquisition
2. Rectification
3. Justice in Transfer

Question 20

1. Justice in Acquisition

Answer 20

How do unowned things come to be legitimately owned?

What kinds of things are allowed to be owned?
i.e. Origin of property (rights)

Question 21

2. Justice in Transfer

Answer 21

How can someone legitimately come to own something previously owned by someone else?

i.e. Exchange of property
E.g. voluntary exchange, gifts, ~theft, ~fraud

Question 22

3. Rectification

Answer 22

How should we go about correcting instances of someone acquiring things illegitimately?

Question 23

Distributive Justice v. Justice in Holdings, who agreed with what?

Answer 23

Distributive Justice:
- Singer (utilitarianism)
- Rawls (‘justice-as-fairness’)

Justice in Holdings:
Nozick (‘Entitlement Theory’)

Question 24

Who came up with The Entitlement Theory?

Answer 24

Nozick: “A distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under that distribution:”

Question 25

3 main points of The Entitlement Theory

Answer 25

1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding
2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding
3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2

Question 26

Do Rawls’s two principles of justice justify capitalist inequalities? Or condemn them?

Answer 26

Yes, they do justify much of the economic inequality in a capitalist society

Question 27

Maximin Principle

Answer 27

A distribution benefits everyone if it at least makes those who are worst-off better off.

Maximizes the minimum