RAWLS VS. NOZICK Flashcards
Rawls and Progressive Liberalism
Introduction
- The 20th century saw the evolution of liberalism, and early 20th-century thinkers emphasized the role of government in promoting social justice while maintaining liberal principles.
- Figures like T.H. Green, Leonard T. Hobhouse, and Herbert Croly paved the way for progressive liberalism, advocating for the idea that freedom extends to achieving one’s full potential with the help of social resources.
Rawls
- John Rawls, a prominent figure in 20th-century progressive liberalism, presented “A Theory of Justice” as his seminal work.
- His focus was on distributive justice, specifically addressing the fair distribution of primary goods, including fundamental liberties, income, and opportunities for meaningful work.
Justice” has many meanings.
The one we’re concerned w/ today is distributive justice: What constitutes a fair division of resources.
Rawls wrote his A Theory of Justice to undermine what he saw as the dominance of utilitarianism in Anglo-American moral philosophy and political economy. Both Rawls & Nozick rejected the utilitarian perspective, but for different reasons
Rawls’ best known ideas are his “difference principle” and the “Original Position”/“Veil of Ignorance,” which is used to justify the difference principle
Original Position and Veil of Ignorance
- Rawls introduced the “Original Position,” a hypothetical state where representatives negotiate principles for the basic structure of society.
- The “Veil of Ignorance” ensures a fair decision-making process by concealing information about individuals’ social status, beliefs, and personal characteristics.
- Rational individuals, motivated by a sense of justice and behind the veil, would agree to principles that protect basic liberties and reduce inequalities for the least advantaged (difference principle).
Evolution of Rawls’ Thought
- Rawls evolved from a “metaphysical” approach to a “political” one, emphasizing the practical context of liberal democracies, especially in the United States.
- Introduced the concept of the “Overlapping Consensus” to address the fact of reasonable pluralism, allowing people with diverse values to find reasons within their own beliefs to support principles of justice.
Nozick & Libertarianism
- Positioned distinctly from progressive liberalism, libertarianism falls under the broader category of liberalism but emphasizes economic liberties and minimal government intervention.
- Figures like Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, and James Buchanan, while defending economic liberties, are often labeled as classical liberals rather than libertarians.
Libertarianism is situated far away from Rawlsian liberalism on the ideological spectrum. But it can be argued that both schools of thought belong to the vaguely defined category “liberalism.” Neither can be confused w/ Marxism (on the left of Rawls) nor with illiberal currents to the right of libertarianism, e.g., nationalist populism
Libertarianism is rooted in the Lockian notion of self-ownership (for Locke, it is b/c “ “every man has a Property in his own Person“ that what every man creates with his own labour belongs to him).
Libertarians take self-ownership very seriously—indeed, quite literally.
■Self-ownership entails that individuals must give consent to any attempt by another individual or institution to get anything from said individual. As Nozick famously said, “taxation is theft!”
Nozick’s Ultraminimal State
- Nozick challenges the legitimacy of the state as a monopoly on force and for its role in redistribution through taxation.
- Proposes the concept of the “ultraminimal state,” where individuals voluntarily support protection agencies, gradually leading to a state-like entity without violating libertarian principles.
Individuals ought to be free to join voluntary organizations. But the state as we know it—monopoly of the use of force, and responsible for redistribution through taxation—is illegitimate.
It is also unnecessary: all services that the state currently provides can be produced/made available by properly functioning free markets.
■That even includes policing. Contracting private ”protection agencies”; Nozick overtime, one would become a monopoly = “ultraminimal state.” Would look like a state (monopoly of force) but still wouldn’t impose taxes.
Entitlement Theory
- Based on the Lockian notion of self-ownership, Nozick’s entitlement theory emphasizes just acquisition and transfer of holdings.
- Three principles govern entitlement: justice in acquisition, justice in transfer, and the absence of entitlement except through just acquisition or transfer.
- Acknowledges that past injustices might require rectification but leaves room for debate on the practical implementation of this principle.
Entitlement Theory
■One of the motivations that led Nozick to write Anarchy, State & Utopia was to propose an alternative to Rawls’ theory of justice.
Nozick called Rawls’ definition a “patterned” principle,” i.e., a
“conception of justice that presents an end state or other pattern that must be realized.”
This could be used to justify interfering with people’s lives, such as denying—as Rawls did—that an individual fully owns his/her talents
The Nozickian individual owes nothing to anyone else (but is free to give as generously as he/she please.)
Three principles follow
–A person who acquires a holding in accordance w/ the principle of justice in acquisition (similar to Locke’s use ow one’s labour/talents) is entitled to that holding.
–Same with exchange of holdings/goods (“justice in transfers”).
–No one is entitled to a holding except by repeated application of the above principles. However, past injustices in the acquisition of property could require rectifications. (Principle of rectification)
Basic Concepts Rawls
■Rawls’s goal was to articulate the principles upon which the “basic structure” of society could be grounded—the fundamental institutions and norms guiding policy-making, the administration of justice, political debates, etc.
Not “justice” in a comprehensive sense, but justice as far as the distribution of “primary goods” is concerned.
Primary goods: the kind of things you want more of… They include:
➢fundamental liberties (of speech, movement, etc. BUT not property rights)
➢income; and the bases of self-respect (e.g., opportunities for meaningful work
Rawls thought that his theory would be more convincing if he could demonstrate that it is not just his own interpretation of the facts of the matter, but something that all reasonable people could regard as something that they too would agree with.
Especially if it can be shown that the theory is consistent with everyone’s unbiased expectation of a fair distribution of what is essential to live a fulfilling life.
■Hence the concepts of the Original Position and (within it) of the Veil of Ignorance.
Rawls: Justice as Fairness
.
■You’re already familiar with the rules of that game: it’s called designing a social contract in a hypothetical state of nature!
■The Original Position is where the representatives of society meet on a basis of equality.
They are merely expected to bargain among themselves in order to find an arrangement that is to their reciprocal advantage.
But to bargain fairly, they are expected to retire behind a veil of ignorance which will hide from them most sources of bias
Behind the V. of I., the bargaining representatives of society will have no knowledge of
–Their social position (high or low status);
–The philosophical/ideological or religious doctrines to which they adhere;
–Whether their personal characteristics (race/ethnicity, gender, etc.) give them any advantage.
■However
–They are rational
–Have a capacity for a sense of justice
–They are not motivated by envy.
■Rawls assume that the bargaining individuals are risk-averse—they don’t want to find out when the veil is lifted that they are at the bottom of the scale AND that society cares little for their well-being Aim for the maximum of the minimum that can be achieved (maximin).
Principles they (supposedly) agree to:
–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.
–Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: i) they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and ii) they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).
These principles are lexically ordered: the one which comes first has priority over the one that comes next
policy-makers should not enforce the difference principle (which comes last) in ways that would violate people’s “basic liberties.”
But since the basic liberties do not, for Rawls include economic liberties, it is alright to tax wealthy individuals to pay for redistributive programs that benefit the least-advantaged.
