Session 1 Flashcards
Theory of distributive justice
What are the three questions of distributive justice?
-
Scope
At what level decisions of justice should be made? -
Metric
What is the specific variable that must be distributed in a certain way? Is it resources, liberties, wealth, opportunities, outcomes? -
Pattern
How the metric should be distributed?
Transactional theories of justice
What is the definition of transactional theories of justice?
Transactional theories of justice - theories that identify criteria of justice for particular transactions, exchanges, and interactions between two individuals.
One might specify that a transaction must be voluntary, mutually consented, in good faith, and without deception, etc.
Robert’ Nozick’s historically-oriented transactional theory
What is Robert’ Nozick’s historically-oriented transactional theory?
“Anarchy, State and Utopia” by Robert Nozick states that what arises from a just starting point (individuals start as legitimate owners of their property) and goes through just transactions produces a just outcome.
Robert’ Nozick’s historically-oriented transactional theory
What is the freedom-based critique of distributive pattern?
Based on the Robert’ Nozick’s istorically-oriented transactional theory the entire idea of distributie justice may be inaccurate. Even though the author agrees that goods can and should be distributed, but whenever it is not possible, the transactional theory statements should be applied.
Frederick Hayek’s epistemic critique of distributive patterns
What is Frederick Hayek’s epistemic critique of distributive patterns?
Frederick Hayek argued that for distributive justice to be applied, there needs to be a single authority responsible for the said distribution, which is not possible in a market economy, where small players make thousands of transactions thus, the distribution of income and wealth cannot be described as just or unjust (because of the thousands of decentralized transactions). Even if there was a central authority capable of distributing all goods, it would not have enough information to distribute said goods fairly and efficiently and thus would be unjust.
Frederick Hayek’s epistemic critique of distributive patterns
What is one objection on Frederick Hayek’s epistemic critique of distributive patterns and it’s counter-argument?
Objection to this theory:
The market is not an institution of nature, and the community working in the market can redefine it.
Counter-argument:
Limiting the market requires too much information, and that isn’t possible.
Systematic/ structural theories of justice: Utilitarianism
What is utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism - a theory that justice lies in maximizing aggregate utility (preference satisfaction), taking into account the intensity of preferences.
Systematic/ structural theories of justice: Utilitarianism
What is the pattern and metric of utilitarianism?
Pattern:
Metric should be maximized in the aggregate, without any concern for the distribution of that amount amongst members of society.
Metric:
1. utility (which Bentham equates with pleasure);
2. satisfaction of existing preferences, taking into account their intensity.
Systematic/ structural theories of justice: Utilitarianism
What is the Rawlsian critique of utilitarianism?
Rawlsian critique states that utilitarianism does not take into account the distinction between individuals and does not protect their rights because there are no limits to potential trade-offs between people. It also states that individuals can be substituted for one another. Furthermore, if not respecting even basic human rights would create a large enough gain in utility, such a system would allow that to happen.
Systematic/ structural theories of justice: Utilitarianism
What are the main points of the egalitarian dimension of utilitarianism?
- Jeremy Bentham described it as a system where who loses and who gains doesn’t matter, everyone in the eyes of the system is perfectly equal;
- Utilitarianism also rejects the aristocratic and elitist understanding of justice and importance;
- Due to decreasing marginal utility, maximizing utility will require reducing inequality;
- Inequality and perception of inequality triggers negative emotions, meaning it has to be addressed for utilitarianism to work.
Systematic/ structural theories of justice: Utilitarianism
What are the main points of the anti-egalitarian dimension of utilitarianism?
- Anti-egalitarian preferences (racism, sexism) are included in the utility calculus thus, it doesn’t address justice.
- Jon Elster, in the book “Sour Grapes” argues that adaptive preference formation has inequality-producing effects (a fox thinks that the grapes it cannot eat are sour) by the fact that an individual’s background shapes preferences.
- The metric of satisfaction cannot be made into an empirical value without jeopardizing equality (not all individuals agree on the choice of the proxy or value).
Systematic/ structural theories of justice: Rawlsian theory of justice
What are the circumstances of justice as mentioned by Ralws, inspired by Humes that need to be aquired for justice to exist?
- Self-interested agents exist, and are not necessarily altruistic or bound by moral ties;
- These agents all have broadly similar physical and cognitive capacities (i.e. justice does not apply to animals);
- The agens all put forward conflicting claims about the distribution of goods;
- The goods themselves are valuable and moderatly scarce (if scarsity is absolute, then survival is the most important thing -> justice has no conceptual or physchgological space to exist)
Systematic/ structural theories of justice: Rawlsian theory of justice
What are the main features of the Rawlsian theory of justice?
- The principles of justice, which govern the main aspects of society, are principles that people would agree upon by free and rational individuals within an appropriate choice predicament
- The just distribution is one that complies with the principles that would be chosen in the appropriate choice predicament
Systematic/ structural theories of justice: Rawlsian theory of justice
What are Rawls’ thoughts on utilitarianism, just principles and ‘original position’?
- Thoughts on utilitarianism:
Rawls believes that utilitarianism should be taken into account in the legislative process even though such a system focuses more on the end goal rather than decision-making process. - Thoughts on just principles
Just principles are those which people freely agree to, under the original condition. Justice is the outcome of the collective choice made by self-interested individuals who are prevented from knowing what their interest is. - Original position
In order to select the principles of justice that will will be applied to society they must be placed in the ‘original position’, wherein decision-makers are deprived of all information regarding their personal attributes and relative advantages. They must also ignore their distinctive interests. The ‘original position’ ensures that vested and distinctive interests are not able to be used within the choice making process, thus guaranteeing impartiality.
Systematic/ structural theories of justice: Rawlsian theory of justice
What is the metric of the Rawlsian theory?
Primary goods - goods that any and every rational agent supposedly wants rather more or than less of (for example: civil and political rights and liberties, income and wealth, self-respect, etc.)
Systematic/ structural theories of justice: Rawlsian theory of justice
What are the main critiques of Rawls’ theory?
- It is unclear that there can be a deliberate component within the original position. it is possible that if all information about one’s life and experience are restricted, there is no way or reason for people to have diverging views, and thus deliberation would not take place.
- Dworkin critiques the theory stating that it assumes that equality is the legitimate baseline. In the original position, all diffirences have been eliminated from the equation, meaning that no one can use comparative advantages in the use of principles of justice.
- The difficulty of providing primary goods refering to Rawls’ metric. For example, how can self-respect be distributed amongst people? How this metric would be accurately measured in order to make sure it has been distributed fairly?
- Amartya Sen argues that it assumes that two people have equal holding of primary goods. However, this is not always the case. An example: one person has his legs while the other one doesn’t. In this case, the handicaped individual must spend part of his primary goods and income in order to get legs and get to the same level as the non-handicaped person was from the beginning. Thus, it is not the share of the resources that people have that is interesting, but rather their ability to act with them.
Systematic/ structural theories of justice: Rawlsian theory of justice
What are Rawls’ principles of justice and their subcomponents?
(These principles are lexically ordered, meaning that the first takes power over the second one)
1. Equal distribution of basic civil and political rights and liberties
2. Distribution of income and wealth
2.1. carrers open to talents (competition for valuable occupational positions must be open to everyone)
2.2. fair equality of opportunity (those that are not on the same level of talent and ability should have the same probability of sucess irrespecitive of the income class they are born into)
2.3. difference principle (social arrangements should maximise the holdings of the worst-off
Systematic/ structural theories of justice: Rawlsian theory of justice
What are the critiques of sub-principle 2. fair equality of opportunity and 3. difference principle of the Rawls’ theory? What are the counter-arguments?
Critiques of the 2nd sub-pinciple of fair equality of opportunity:
1. Such principle conflicts with certain liberal values, such as the existence of the family as a social institution. Family circumstances will have an impact on the opportunities of people and parents cannot avoid making decisions that will have an impact on their children, possible putting them at an advantage.
2. Talent, effort and circumstances are understood as separate determinants of outcomes, but in reality these are not entirely observable and are arguably interrelated.
The counter-argument for the second critique of the 2nd sub-principle:
John Roemer states that there is a potencial way around the critique. He claims that variations between reference groups should be ascribed to circumstances, while the variation within such groups relect the differences in degrees of individual effort by group members. The reference groups are groups that perform differently to one another based on a limited list of criteria. Even though such theory accounts for the shared intuitions that arguable underlie in existing redistributive policies, it undermines the conception of individuals as autonomous beings and stigmatises groups
The critiques of the third sub-principle of difference principle:
1. John Harsanyj states that the risk aversennes assumption is unwarranted, as rational individuals are placed behind the veil of ignorance in the original position would not minimise risk, but rather maximise average utility
2. Richard Arneson states that the focus on the ‘worst-off’ group cannot yield policy creation in the absence of additional arguments as to how that group should be defined
3. Ronald Dworkin and Gerland Allan Cohen use the lucky egalitarian argument. They state that if the worst-off are the worst-off as a result of their voluntary choices (as opposed to uncontrollable circumstances), the difference principle would be unfair and should not be taken into concideration.
