PHIL 1104: Distributive Justice

What is Nozick's Entitlement Theory?

A distribution is just if and only if each person is entitled to her holdings, if and only if each acquired those holds by approved processes

Why does Rawls think that agents in the Original Position would prefer his two principles to strict egalitarian principles?

Some inequalities can make every better. Since one might be a "have not", agents in OP want them to be as well off as possible.

What is the "stolen land" problem for the Entitlement Theory?

Suppose that A inherits property (approved process) from B, who stole it (unapproved process) from C

What is the "monopoly problem" for the Entitlement Theory?

Tends to lead to enormous inequalities in wealth and therefore power (threatens political equality) Gives luck too great a role in determining which outcomes are "just" Presumes that the initial distribution was just The stolen land problem

What two principles of justice would people in the original position adopt, according to Rawls, and why would they choose those two principles in particular?

The Liberty Principle: Each person is to have a basic right to the most extensive set of liberties compatible with the same liberties for others (Political liberty, Freedom of speech and assembly, Freedom of conscience/thought, Freedom of the person (from assault), and Right to due process) The difference principle: Social and econoomic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are: 1. To the advantage of everyone, including the least advantaged 2. Attached to offices and positions open to all on the basis of a fair competition They would choose these two positions because that's what people would choose from the original position

Describe the situation Rawls calls "the original position".

The original position is a situation of choice under uncertainty in which it is rational to apply the maximin rule. Maximin rule: maximize the minimum outcome. This means that you choose the alternative with the best worst outcome

What is the purpose of the so-called "veil of ignorance"?

The veil of ignorance is a situation of equality where no one knows his/her race, gender, class, social status, natural assets and abilities, occupation, religion, conception of the good life. So a life where people are unaware of the differences between them

Why does Rawls think that agents in the Original Position would prefer his two principles to utilitarian principles?

Utilitarianism is risky for people in OP

Why, according to Rawls, should we "regard the distribution of natural talents as a common asset" (as quoted in Sandel, p. 156)?

It should be disregarded because natural talents should be used to benefit the community as a whole. The difference principle represents this agreement

How are entitlements determined, according to Nozick?

Original acquisition Voluntary transfer Rectification of past injustice

What is "the natural lottery"?

the biological potentials each person is born with. People do nothing to control this

Explain Nozick's distinction between end-state principles and historical principles of justice. Is the Entitlement Theory an end-state theory, or an historical theory?

End-state: Justice of a distribution is determined by how things are distributed (who has what) as judged by some structural principle of just distribution Historical: Hold that past circumstances or actions of people can create differential entitlements or differential deserts to things Entitlement Theory is a historical theory: Whether a distribution is just depends upon how it came about

What is the difference between entitlement and desert?

Entitlement is some that is acquired in an approved way. Something is deserved if it is earned on merits such as working hardest or doing some good deed.

If she deserves it, is she necessarily entitled?

And just because someone deserves something, doesn't mean that they are entitled to it. You may deserve a item or property, but it may not have been given to you or you may not have acquired it justly.

What is the liberal egalitarian view of distributive justice?

Benefits/burdens should be distributed in such a way as to benefit everyone, including the least well off

What is the utilitarian view of distributive justice?

Benefits/burdens should be distributed so as to maximize utility (welfare). If an unequal distribution will create more total welfare then Utilitarianism will reject Strict Egalitarianism. But utilitarianism is egalitarian in another way: everyone's interest

What is the libertarian view of distributive justice?

Benefits/burdens should be distributed via free trade of property rights, to maximize individual liberty. No constraints on pattern of distribution, only on process. In principle, any distribution, no matter how unequal, could be perfectly just.

What are the implications for the Entitlement Theory if the current distribution of wealth resulted from unjust practices?

From the stolen land problem: A. A is not entitled to that land B. Someone else (C or C's heirs) may be entitled to it (rectification of past injustice) Rectification = correction We would have to think about what would have happened if those unjust acts did not happen

What is the (strict) egalitarian view of distributive justice?

Goods should be distributed equally. Requires limitations on individual liberty to maintain equality. Often criticized for inefficiency: Some inequality might make everyone better off because it provides incentives to make people work harder

As explained by Sandel, does Rawls does Rawls see distributive justice as a matter of rewarding moral virtue or moral desert? If not, then what is distributive justice about?

He does not see it as rewarding moral desert because he wants to encourage the gifted to develop and exercise their talents, but understand that the rewards these talents bring belong to the community as a whole Distributive justice is about meeting the legitimate expectations that arise once the rules of the game are in place

What is the main question that distributive justice deals with? Is it focused on pattern or process (or both)?

How should the benefits and burdens of society be shared or distributed? It is focused on both pattern and process: What pattern should the distribution take? By what processes should goods be distributed?

If a person is entitled to some piece of property, does it follow that she deserves it?

If a person is entitled to something, it does not necessarily mean that they deserve it. They may be a horrible person but they are entitled to something through an approved process such as voluntary transfer

How does Nozick argue that end-state principles require "continuous interference in people's lives"? Is that a problem?

In order to approximate this, continually interfere in people's lives to make it more ideal; yes that is a problem We would have to stop their favored way of transferring items to one another

Why does Rawls think that agents in the Original Position would prefer his two principles to libertarian principles?

Libertarianism is even riskier than Utilitarianism. It allows some to amass huge fortunes and leave others in abject poverty Who gets rich depends largely on luck

What is maximin? What role does it play in Rawls' arguments?

Maximin: maximize the minimum outcome Role does it play in Rawls arguments: 1. Inequalities in rights/liberties/opportunities cannot benefit the worst off (hence the liberty principle) 2. Inequalities in income/wealth can benefit the worst off (hence the difference principle)

As explained by Sandel, why does Rawls reject a strictly meritocratic conception of justice?

Rawls reject it because it makes it easier for people who are more privileged to get ahead since they "start at a better position". He thinks this can be solved by making everyone the same and to level down or for the gifted to see their talents benefit the community as a whole

Describe the position Rawls calls "justice as fairness". In what respect(s) is it a social contract theory of justice?

Rawls states that a just society is one that is fair (Fair: conforms to rules that would be chosen in the original position) It als follows Rawls two principles: The liberty principle and the difference principle

How does Nozick argue that redistributive taxation of earning "is on a par with forced labor"?

Redistributive taxation of earning is on par with forced labor because it violates self-ownership If some are too poor to pay the taxes then the rich will have to pay more which means redistribution He argues that it is a form of slavery Money that people work for is theirs, so it would be wrong to take it and use it for something else