A Theory of Justice - John Rawls

A Theory of Justice - John Rawls

• Rawls argues for a just distribution of goods, using the concept of justice.
• The difference principle considers inequality as acceptable only if it benefits the least advantaged.
• In the original position, people in a fair situation would choose the difference principle.
• These people are self-interested but ignorant of their own characteristics (veil of ignorance).
• The veil of ignorance helps explain the difference principle and vice versa.
• Without the veil of ignorance, people may form groups based on arbitrary traits.
• A principle of justice should not benefit some based on arbitrary traits.
• The veil of ignorance ensures the principles of justice aren't defective.
• The original position combines the veil of ignorance and self-interest.
• The difference principle results from the veil of ignorance.
• Justice as fairness is Rawls' guiding aim.
• The aim is to create a theory of justice as a viable alternative to the dominant philosophies.
• Each person's inviolability should be protected by justice, even over societal welfare.
• Justice doesn't allow sacrificing freedom for a greater shared good.
• Sacrifices imposed on a few should not be outweighed by the advantages of many.
• Consequentialism is not supported.
• Rawls addresses questions regarding the conception of justice, social contracts, cooperation, surplus creation, surplus distribution, and cooperation rules.
• A conception of justice can be generalized or particularized, changing over time for individuals or groups.
• The concept of justice involves broader, non-arbitrary rights and rules.

Bargaining/Original Position Considerations

• Specification of the position is required.
• Constraints need to be added to considerations.
• People are free and equal.
• People want the best rights while being self-interested, aiming for a distribution of primary goods; potential zero cooperation could worsen everyone's situation.
• Forming groups based on arbitrary traits could occur.
• The veil of ignorance precludes arbitrary principles.
• Rawls aims for fairness so the situation results in fair principles.
• Rights and the difference principle are important.
• Being unaware of one's place in society is key.
• Being self-interested is important.
• The veil of ignorance precludes arbitrary principle.
• The difference principle is key.
• Rawls' conclusions need to be distinguished from arguments.
• Utilitarianism maximizes utility/happiness.
• Egalitarianism ensures equal rights and money.
• The difference principle focuses on the benefit to the worst off.

Original Position and Principles

• The original position is a hypothetical scenario.
• Individuals choose justice principles while ignorant of personal characteristics and social circumstances due to a veil of ignorance.
• Impartiality is ensured by preventing individuals from tailoring principles for their benefit.
• The first principle guarantees equal basic liberties for citizens.
• Social and economic inequalities under the second principle are allowed if attached to open positions with fair opportunity and benefit the least advantaged.
• The general conception of justice distributes primary social goods equally.
• Unequal distribution is acceptable if it benefits everyone.
• Justifiable deviations from equality improve everyone's situation.
• Rawls suggests an analogy between choosing the principles and the maximin rule.
• The maximin rule chooses the alternative with the best worst-case outcome.
• In the original position's uncertainty, a conservative approach would be adopted to protect against the worst scenarios.
• Primary social goods, such as rights, liberties, opportunities, income, wealth, and self-respect, are desired by every rational person.
• These goods form the foundation for evaluating justice conceptions in the original position.
• The difference principle allows economic inequalities only if they most benefit society's least advantaged.
• All inequality must improve the long-term expectations of the worst off.
• Lexical ordering prioritizes the first principle: equal basic liberties.
• Rawls believes people wouldn't trade fundamental liberties for material gains once a certain well-being level is met.
• Utilitarianism maximizes societal happiness or utility, potentially sacrificing some individuals for the greater good.
• Rawls' contract theory emphasizes rights and fairness via impartial principles.
• The original position's principles are chosen based on knowledge of human society, economics, and psychology.
• A justice theory depends on factual considerations to define feasible arrangements.
• Rawls believes the two principles guarantee a "satisfactory minimum" for all.
• The difference principle and equal liberties ensure rights and opportunities acceptable even to the worst-off.

Political Liberalism - Nussbaum

• Perfectionist liberals include Raz and Berlin.
• Raz values autonomy, committing him to pluralism.
• Pluralism emphasizes diverse, equal ways of life.
• Toleration is required with a commitment to pluralism.
• Tolerance is the philosophical point of argument.
• Isaiah Berlin's argument skips autonomy to pluralism, tolerating others.
• Rawls is a political liberal.
• Unreasonable views should be excluded.
• He argues respect is a core starting point leading to toleration.
• Respecting people means tolerating their lifestyles.
• Nussbaum differentiates perfectionist and political liberals.
• Rawls grounds his view in respect, unlike Raz and Berlin, who use pluralism and autonomy.
• Perfectionist liberals support a comprehensive doctrine, a morally valuable view about the world.
• Raz emphasizes autonomy, considered a perfectionist's controversial value.
• Raz advocates for toleration with his core value of autonomy.
• Berlin champions controversial pluralism, as not all believe all modes of life are equal.
• Controversial comprehensive doctrines result in perfectionist liberalism.
• Political liberals build societal principles on consensus.
• Consideration toward including what everyone has in common when making society is key.
• Excluding unreasonable views, avoiding controversy, and rights without moral commitments are tenets.
• Unreasonable views are disrespectful, inconsistent, or unscientific.

Nussbaum's Critique of Rawls

• Problematic exclusion of religious (e.g. Catholicism) views is a main issue.
• Reasonable people's overlapping consensus avoids unreasonable views.
• Reasonable people live respectfully and abide by rules.
• Perfectionist Liberalism bases political principles on specific metaphysical and ethical doctrines promoting these values.
• Freedom and toleration of diverse lifestyles is advocated.
• A diverse society can allow varied views and lifestyles.
• The freedom to live one's life and get along stems from autonomy is advocated.
• A controversial preconception of what a good life looks like is also key.
• Toleration and autonomy are defended by perfectionist liberals.
• Political Liberalism seeks tolerance without comprehensive views.
• Respect and thinner commitment is supported.
• A commitment to comprehensive doctrines is important.
• Pluralism assumes diversity benefits society, and autonomy should be enjoyed by different groups, including religious, trade unions, professional, and ethnic minorities.
• All ways to live are equal and impartant and have their own virtues.
• Pluralists should tolerate others.
• Changing everyone to Catholicism is inappropriate.
• Raz's Doctrine requires moral pluralism acceptance to support options.
• Religious and secular toleration comes via moral pluralism and autonomy.
• Raz's two-part ideal has central value in autonomy requiring another controversial doctrine about value called pluralism.
• A good life, as thought by Raz, needs freedom and options for reflection leading to decision-making.
• If committed to autonomy, pluralism is also tacitly committed.
• Meaningful choices imply people choose from good ways to live.
• Belief in pluralism requires commitment to tolerating lifestyles that are equally as virtuous to your own.
• Forcing your views and lifestyle on others is irrational.
• Respect in this sense goes beyond admiration and relates to Kant's idea of treating humanity as ends, not just means.
• Linked to dignity since humanity has worth, not just a price and equal respect acknowledges people as ends with worth.

Rawls's Reasonability Criterion

• For political liberalism, things are unreasonable in multiple ways.
• Disrespect for democracy, equality or disagreement is morally unreasonable.
• Epistemic unreasonableness includes incoherence or unresponsiveness to evidence.
• Enacting theoretical standards in doctrines from reasonable citizens is an issue.
• Worldviews may not satisfy the standards due to lack of coherence, impermeability to evidence, and an unscientificness which makes them unreasonable.
• Nussbaum worries about excluding the views or excluding Catholicism.
• Reasonable religions should be treated as reasonable.
• Scientific beliefs contradict the rejection of them in religion.
• The "reasonable doctrines" aspect of Rawls needs to be dropped for reasonable people only.
• If everyone treats each other with respect then they should get a seat at the table and be able to live their life doctrinally.
• End state principles = egalitarianism = Rawls.
• Nussbaum favors Political Liberalism over why perfection, as many believers neither valoise autonomy or think there are objective ways to live a good life.
• Similarly, many secular viewpoints reject pluralism which makes social building a problem, leading to instability.
• Perfectionist liberalism subordinates expressiveness of thought, leading to negative associations and a state emphasis on correctness over equality.
• It is inherently wrong because it is aking to religious establisment.
• Political liberalism relies on equal respect to avoid metaphysical claims and protect individuals.
• Grounded in respect, Political Liberalism can achieve "overlapping consensus" among society by being accessible.
• Political liberalism is stable if citizens value respect enough a political liberalism is provided, such as the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution that allows diverse doctrines to coexist.
• This prioritizes equal respect by remaining neutral regarding doctrines while avoiding expressiveness issues and instability from perfectionist views.

LIBERTARIANISM

• Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" challenges centrally controlled distribution.
• Distributive justice can be moved away from, and justice in holdings used instead.
• Justice in holdings is not defined by a pattern or end state principle
• Instead, Entitlement Theory says justice in holdings relies on just acquisition, transfer, and rectifying past injustices.
• Entitlement to the things you have is based on how you got it.
• The proper steps need to be taken to have justice in holding.
• What each person receives in good ratio follows an end state principle.
• Nothing about the people needs to be known.
• Equality is favored.
• Following a pattern principle means tracking relative statistics.
• Entitlement theory is deemed just if acquired through proper channels.
• Each person has their goods bundle.
• On an end state principle, how much does each person have and is it a satisfactory ratio?
• A pattern principle ensures people have an appropriate amount of characteristics.
• You are entitled to a house and car if acquired justly.
• The just steps have two components: transfer of goods, and acquisition.
• Buying on trademe is consensual, voluntary transfer.
• Trade has to come from a previously just state, so was it a just step?
• A transfer can be unjust so the acquisition = unjust state.
• Applying the theory means if you buy something stolen it is not yours.
• Having title to something means you can defend it so justice returns it if rights are violated.
• In the example of applied philosophy and actual policies for taxation redistribution is a concept, but according to Nozick the state unequally takes and gives.
• Unjust transfer plus unfair transfer is wrong and breaks rights.
• Taxation does not fit into selling and buying.

ACQUISITION OF GOODS

• Proper step is not enough; has to be previously done rightfully.
• When asked who owns anything historical acquisitions do the trick, but was land just to aquire it?
• Justice has to be justified because the chain goes into history so it needs to be the first ownership.
• If ownership had an injust part then a person will not be entitled to the land even now.
• Acquiring resources at first it troubling since it looks like a takings.
• Before colonization it was available, diminshing freedom after claiming it.
• No one can morally claim it anymore.
• First ownership justification is needed.

LABOUR-MIXING (Locke)

• Many think that by acquiring some thing with work on it it can belong to them.
• If you acquire ownership by labouring a thing then Locke thinks that you are in control and that is you energy.
• Touching means you take other peoples stuff so it is not justified with labour.
• Does ocean tomatoe jice now mean that it is owning the thing?
• Needs some other way of acquiring with mixing.

Lockean Proviso

• When it leaves people worse off when in world with no privat property it is ok according to nozick.
• Work means acquiring but earth cannot be acquring and this is troubling.
• Be "enough and agood for others" means leave for some.
• But there are worries of constraints cause you cannot take anything begin now.
• Doesnt worsen position, you have Proviso and taking means others is left in place so can take something and you wont.
• When do you feel worse off if I didn’t do anything bad?
• Does it end up worse work if the people are not better in world the system with private proerty is bad?
• So you are only approved to take the youself and position someone.
• Was there an unprovised things where did we start justly?
• In world now they are only taken I it leads no works, equals Proviso

JUSTICE AND RECTIFICATION

• If there is injustice there is a moral of obligation.
• It they worked for and should have then they gave you compesantion to keep justice.
• Historical like slavery needed to fix this or not.

Summary

• Shifts from what ends to getting and the legistimentatcy.
• To tracing, do the Lockean part means you have to be fine without the ownership.
• Flanagan had the idea you can not from, state you can't be denied.
• Treatment and informed leads doctrine to self.
• Her paper is how to give, questions you for regulating how people makes you need, what is required to give is something required.

'Libertarianism Approach To Medicine’ - Jessica Flannagan

• Requiring a prescription to give too much to power.
• Raises the question the eternal list approach has better outcomes.
• Is it stimulus for work to give health sides.
• Or marijuna, or inform decisions of what to do.
• Medical vs the dead right you have the right thing to say, if we die so what?
• How do you prevent infro?
• Licensing is occupational since there needs to be qualifications.
• Anti-consumer means free you should, they are thinking of what say and how the list get the infro.

'Libertarian View on Open Borders' - Javier Hidalgo

• There are not rights of free contract.
• When they make these they are ok with what they the government what's interfering.
• When exclude by restrictions is intruding.
• Property is to get what that is what they infringe not this.
• Restriction can be immigration to rights.
• Owners can impose and take it and not be on own land because state does not own.

Costs and Objections

• Imigrants can take and special ones.
• Culture can go away cause there is over population or the original is loss.
• Hidalgo say that to say what to do and not have segeraction will restrict speech.

SOCIALISM - 'Why Not Socialism?'

• Give equality, there is much more justice here.
• Asks to make political way.
• Not to say that EO gets to a longer position to get that.
• BEO means say ok in the race it injust with ok rights.
• Says you in births needs more oppurtinty equal.
• Say what gets say and what makes.
• Gets you on trip and more in society.
• Some just some trip?
• Say with someone.

Holten

• One has a better look to the things in force but what society would still occur, and he says we don't see it as we do.

INHERENTLY

• Asks how what the bad ways are in this case just say, not what to what, no means of something is what means to you.
• Somethings stay stay, with your face says she cant what the 2 is you have not free by you but only what you take to not do to be to you can find a lot here.
• Not for her idea the most has to get something with to be something with what you're worth.
• If you get the stuff something bad happens or has to something will bad to this action.