Justice

Front 1

Utilitarianism conception of justice

Back 1

Actions are to be assessed in terms of their general happiness
Regarding distributive justice, we should distribute benefits and burdens in such a way as to maximise overall happiness. Sidgwick quote.
Utilitarian justice possibilities:
- Give £1000 to a poor person will do much more than giving £1000 to a rich person- more overall happiness (rule of diminishing marginal utility)
- Having a set of rules whcih reward hard work to incentivise productivity, therefore being likely to increase overall utility

Front 2

Justice as Fairness: overview

Back 2

Core idea: fair principles will be selected by those who do not know what position they will hold in society.
E.g. consider a card game where something unexpected happens. We disagree how to proceed, and we have no actual prior agreement, so can we use a hpothetical; agreement in order to proceed in the way that is fairest?

Front 3

The Original Position

Back 3

Hypothetical so does not fall prey to Hume's objections to non-existent contract theories.
Veil of Ignorance- to insure impartiality
Assumes that under the VOI we will be left with a stripped fown set of things we all desire: primary goods
From the OP, the actors will apply a 'maximin' theory in case they end up in the minimum position.

Front 4

Primary goods

Back 4

Defined in terms of the opportunity they provide us with to pursue our individual goals- "all-purpose goods"
Liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect.

Front 5

Rawls critique of utilitarianism

Back 5

Does not provide an adequate principle for distributive justice because utilitarianism "does not take seriously the distinction between the persons"

Front 6

Main principle of justice as fairness

Back 6

All social primary goods must be distributed equally, unless an unequal distrubution of them is to the advantage of the least favoured (the difference principle)

Front 7

Critique of Rawls: different principles would be selected in the OP

Back 7

Hampton/Harsanyi: people would actually choose differently:
- Either average utilitarianism or average utilitarianism with a floor

Front 8

Critique of Rawls: Gerald Cohen

Back 8

Rawls has an ad hoc understanding of what would be part of the basic structure (the state) and thus the suitable field for justice. Notice that his basic structure was defined before we chose the principles of justice. As a result, principles of justice with a more extensive reach than Rawls favours are excluded from the debate.

Front 9

Feminist critique of Rawls

Back 9

Rawls assumes a liberal division between the public and the private- should the insitution of the family be considered part of the basic structure

Front 10

Marxist critique of Rawls

Back 10

Rawls principles are actually preceeded by other principle: matching people's needs.

Front 11

Communitarian critique of Rawls: Sandel, Walzer and Macintyre

Back 11

Sandel: the 'atomistic society' assumption is flawed.
Walzer: different situations and relationships imply different understandings of what is just. The task of a philosopher is not to think in a vacuum (like the OP is) but to keep in mind the shared cultural assumptions of a particular society.
Macintyre: worried that this is all based on Western philosophical traditions, which have little or no impact on other societies.

Front 12

Nozick: overview

Back 12

Anarchy, State and Utopia
Belief in limited government and a 'night watchman' state
Role of the state is to protect negative liberties, and to uphold the harm principle. Enforcement of contracts and prevention of fraud. The world should be structured as little as possible by the state and as much as possible by the market

Front 13

Nozick critique of Rawls

Back 13

Redistribution goes against liberty and is theft.
Rawls treats social products as detached from individuals (as they are general principles) yet as they are 'produce' they must have been produced by someone, so surely that person or group must have some entitlement over them
Therefore distribution of goods is only just if brought about by the free exchange of consenting adults.

Front 14

Nozick and consent

Back 14

The state MUST rest upon consent, and everything it does must too
Kantian restriction against treating people as a means to an end
Therefore criticises Rawls because redistribution is using people as a means to an end- it is a form of forced labour/slavery!