Lecture on Distributive Justice and John Rawls' Theory
Introduction
- Focus on distributive justice: How should income, wealth, power, and opportunities be distributed?
- Discussion centered around John Rawls' theory.
- Examination of why Rawls' principles of justice are derived from a hypothetical contract.
- Hypothetical contract carried out in an original position of equality.
- Use of the 'veil of ignorance'.
Rawls' Two Principles of Justice
-
Equal Basic Liberties
- People in the original position would choose equal basic liberties over utilitarian principles (greatest good for the greatest number).
- Fundamental rights include freedom of speech, assembly, religious liberty, and freedom of conscience.
- Utilitarianism rejected because it does not respect individual dignity and can oppress minorities.
-
Difference Principle
- Social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the least well-off.
- It would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance, considering one might end up in a disadvantaged position.
- Allows for inequalities that provide incentives to benefit all, especially the least well-off.
Rawls' Argument For the Difference Principle
- Two Arguments:
- Original Position Argument: Principles chosen behind the veil of ignorance.
- Moral Argument: Distribution should not be based on morally arbitrary factors (e.g., birth, natural talents).
- Contrast with Feudal Aristocracy:
- Feudal systems unjust due to accident of birth.
- Leads to formal equality of opportunity (libertarian view).
- Even a meritocracy, where everyone starts equally, is insufficient as it relies on natural talents.
Meritocracy and Beyond
- Merit-based systems still allow unfair advantages due to natural talents.
- Rawls suggests benefiting from talents in a way that aids the least well-off.
- Example: Michael Jordan’s earnings would be just if they benefit the least well-off through taxation.
Critiques and Discussion
- Meritocracy vs. Difference Principle:
- "Mike" argues for merit-based rewards, challenging Rawls.
- "Kate" questions fairness based on starting advantages.
- Study shows only 3% of students in elite schools come from poor backgrounds.
Addressing Critiques
- Incentives: Rawls allows for incentives to keep talented individuals motivated, as long as it benefits the least well-off.
- Effort and Desert: Effort often influenced by arbitrary factors such as family, birth order.
- Self-Ownership: Libertarians argue taxation for redistribution is coercion.
Moral Desert vs. Legitimate Expectations
- Rawls makes a distinction:
- Moral Desert: Not a basis for distributive justice.
- Legitimate Expectations: Entitlements based on social institutions and arrangements.
- Lottery vs. skill game analogy: Entitlements vs. desert.
Application to Society
- Examines wage differentials (e.g., David Letterman vs. school teachers) and justifications under the difference principle.
- Wealth and opportunities should benefit all, including the least well-off.
Conclusion
- Rawls challenges traditional views by emphasizing fairness beyond meritocracy.
- Raises questions about justifications for wealth and opportunities, leading to discussions on affirmative action.
Additional Resources
- Engage with content online, quizzes, and discussions at justiceharvard.org.
- Program funding provided by additional sources.
This lecture provides a comprehensive overview of John Rawls’ principles of distributive justice, focusing on the equal basic liberties and the difference principle, and critically engaging with counterarguments and societal implications.