test 2 PHL 230

Who said "Those who are at the same level of talent and ability, and have the same willingness to use them, should have the same prospect of success regardless of their initial place in the social system."?

John Rawls

What is meant by a 'nightwatchman state'? What is the difference between a nightwatchman state and anarchy?

-"nightwatchman" state exists only to protect individuals and their private property. - - - to properly respect contracts and resolve property disputes, a judiciary is necessary - - -with respect to protecting persons and their property, a police force and a military are legitimate - - -citizens may justifiably be taxed to support these basic functions. -The nightwatchman state is a minimalist government whereas anarchy has no government at all. Anarchism would require personal liberties to be protected by private firms or individuals whereas the nightwatchman state uses a government to protect these rights

Who said, "No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favorable starting place in society ... it does not follow that one should eliminate these distinctions. There is another way to deal with them. The basic structure can be arranged so that these contingencies work for the good of the least fortunate."

John Rawls

What are the basic details of Locke's account of JIA? What is the 'Lockean proviso' that places a constraint of justified appropriation? What considerations does Locke appeal to in building a case for the acquisition of previously unappropriated goods?

- self-ownership allows a person the freedom to mix his or her labor with natural resources, thus converting common property into private property. -Lockean proviso states that you can do so only "...at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others". -The proviso says that though every appropriation of property is a diminution of another's rights to it, Locke states that it is acceptable as long as it does not make anyone worse off than they would have been without any private property

What does 'maximin' mean? Why does Rawls think it would be rational for parties in the Original Position to maximin? What conditions have to be met for maximin to be a rational choice?

-*Maximin* means the maximum of minima -In philosophy, the maximin principle is the rule which states that social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that "they are to be of the *greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members* of society -Rawls argues that, given the enormous gravity of choice in the original position, plus the fact that the choice is not repeatable, it is *rational* for the parties to follow the maximin strategy -*conditions* - - -there should be no basis or at most a very insecure basis upon which to make estimates of probabilities - - -all the other alternatives have (worse) outcomes that we could not accept and live with

What are concrete examples of how contemporary American society meets or fails to meet the principles of fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle? What measures might those principles require?

-American society does not - - - guarantee equal rights to political liberty regardless of economic background - - - provide equal education for all member of society -These principles would require campaign finance reformations as well as education reformations to provide more funding to schools with more children from a low-education/income

Who, according to Spencer, owns the earth, and why? How does Spencer's account of the ownership of the earth differ from Nozick's?

-Given a race of beings having like claims to pursue the objects of their desires - given a world adapted to the gratification of those desires - a world into which such beings are similarly born, and it unavoidably follows that they have equal rights to the use of this world. For if each of them "has freedom to do all that he wills provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other," then each of them is free to use the earth for the satisfaction of his wants, provided he allows all others the same liberty. -Nozick believes it's possible to acquire land justly, while Spencer believes any acquisition of land limits other's access to it and is thus unjust

What is the 'Original Position' (OP)? What is the 'Veil of Ignorance'? In the OP, what do parties know? What knowledge are parties deprived of?

-The original position is a central feature of John Rawls's social contract account of justice -The Veil of Ignorance is to insure impartiality of judgment, the parties are deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and social and historical circumstances -In the OP, parties know certain fundamental interests they all have, plus general facts about psychology, economics, biology, and other social and natural sciences

What are Kymlicka's main objections to Nozick's libertarianism? In particular, you should be familiar with the basics of the Amy and Ben case/s discussed in class.

-He argues that appropriation in either situation would result in an illegitimate acquisition because of the arbitrary consideration of the condition of either person. -Specifically, in either situation, only matters of material welfare or production are taken into consideration. As long as A and B never receive less than their baseline capacity, either situation would satisfy Nozick's conditions. -However, if A appropriates, is it possible that B might actually be worse off when compared to the baseline? - - -As in Situation 1, the appropriation would essentially subject B to the will of A in terms of labor and production; therefore, it appears that B might not have come out of the appropriation with at least as much as B had before. - - - After all, A controls all means of production in such a way that B cannot survive without now either violating A's claim to property rights or giving in to A's demands. - - - Assuming that other non-materialistic elements such as autonomy and freedom are included in the definition of welfare, then B would have been made worse off. Indeed it may be argued that B's self-ownership has been reduced to a mere formality since A essentially owns him as a kind of slave

Why, in Rawls's view, is the OP justified as a device for thinking about the design of a just society?

-He assumes that if the parties to the social contract are fairly situated and take all relevant information into account, then the principles they would agree to are also fair. The fairness of the original agreement situation transfers to the principles everyone agrees to, and further that whatever laws or institutions are required by the principles of justice are also fair. - - -The principles of justice chosen in the original position are in this way the result of a choice procedure designed to "incorporate pure procedural justice at the highest level"

What does Nozick mean by a 'historical' and 'unpatterned' theory of justice, and why does he favor such a theory (rather than an 'end-state' or 'patterned' theory)?

-It does not demand that the distribution resulting from just acquisitions, transfers and rectifications be patterned - - - i.e. correlated with anything else (such as moral merit, need, usefulness to society) -people may be entitled to things got by chance or gift. -Any distribution, irrespective of any pattern it may or may not have, is just provided it has the appropriate history, provided it did in fact come about in accordance with the rules of acquisition, transfer and rectification -he favors an unpattered and historical theory of justice because they do not distribute

In what ways does Nozick revise Locke's account of JIA? What is Nozick's test for whether a particular acquisition of previously unappropriated goods is just?

-Nozick re-interprets the proviso to mean that if the initial acquisition fails to make anyone worse off who was using the resource before, then it is justly acquired. - - -the position of others after the acquisition cannot be made worse off than they were when the property in question was unowned. - - - someone could appropriate all of a good, just so long as they allowed access to it to those who were using the resource before and that this appropriation does not make them worse off materially than they were before

What is the appropriate role of government in Nozick's libertarian theory? How well does contemporary American society meet or fail to meet Nozick's ideal? What does his theory likely imply about the justice of the current American distribution of income and wealth?

-Nozick's believes the role of government is limited to the protection of the rights of person, property, and contract -Contemporary America fails to meet Nozick's ideal because - - -authority is used to curtail individual freedoms in order to fit some pre-ordained set of societal norms, Nozick would have been vehemently opposed to such intrusion of the state into private lives - - - Nozick opposed paternalistic legislation believing the state should not have the right to interfere with an individual's choice to risk serious injury - - - Nozick opposed what might be called "legislation of morality" - - - - - Nozick would have thought it wrongful for the state to interfere with homosexual couple wishing to marry and exercise the property rights of a domestic partnership (a state shouldn't get to decide what is arbitrarily moral) - - - Nozick considered taxation the equivalent of forced labor -Nozick's theory would imply that the current American distribution of income and wealth would be unjust simply because of taxes

What are the three principles that make up Nozick's libertarian theory of 'justice as entitlement'? What are examples of violations of each principle?

-Nozick's entitlement theory comprises 3 main principles: - - -*principle of justice in acquisition* - - - - -individuals may acquire any property they wish just so long as it is previously unowned and is not taken by theft, coercion or fraud. - - -*principle of justice in transfer* - - - - - property may be exchanged just so long as the transfer is not executed (again) by theft, force or fraud. - - -*A principle of rectification of injustice* - - - - -- how to deal with holdings that are unjustly acquired or transferred, whether and how much victims can be compensated, how to deal with long past transgressions or injustices done by a government (No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2.) -violations - - - 1st principle- acquiring property through theft - - - 2nd principle- exchanging property though force - - - 3rd principle- not rectifying a situation where either of the first two principles have been violated

What are 'primary goods'? What is a 'conception of the good'?

-Primary goods are subdivided in two categories: - - -Natural primary goods: intelligence, imagination, health, speed etc. - - -Social primary goods: rights (civil rights and political rights), liberties, income and wealth, the social bases of self-respect, etc -a conception of the good includes a conception of what is valuable in human life." - - -Normally it consists "of a more or less determinate scheme of final ends, that is, [goals] that we want to realize for their own sake, as well as attachments to other persons and loyalties to various groups and associations"

How might Rawls reply to Nozick's criticism of the egalitarian theory of justice by appeal to the value of reciprocity?

-Rawls expects that people will respond to each other in similar ways—responding to gifts and kindnesses from others with similar benevolence of their own, and responding to harmful, hurtful acts from others with either indifference or some form of retaliation

What is the purpose of a principle of 'just initial acquisition' (JIA)? You should be able to explain key considerations in favor of property ownership (with reference to the concept of the 'tragedy of the commons').

-The purpose of just initial acquisition is to provide a fair way to determine if someone acquired something justly or is not unjust in acquiring something. -1. I own myself, if I mix my labor with the world, I own it • 2. It's okay as long as I leave "as much and as good" - - -Tragedy of the commons states that people don't actually leave as much and as good - - -When it's unowned, rational thing for individual to do is not good for the whole • 3. If one person can regulate it in the way that everyone is better off than if no one owned it, that would be okay • 4. Need free market then

What does Rawls mean by the 'natural lottery' and the 'social lottery'?

-a natural lottery is the biological potentials each person is born with -a social lottery is the political, social, and economic circumstances into which each person is born

What are some of the problems that Spencer raises with the sort of system of private property ownership defended by Nozick?

-difficulties arise with the idea that the claim to any article of property thus obtained, is valid only 'when there is enough and as good left in common for others.' - - -How is it to be known that enough is 'left in common for others'? Who can determine whether what remains is 'as good' as what is taken; How if the remnant is less accessible? If there is not enough 'left in common for others,' how must the right of appropriation be exercised? Why, in such case, does the mixing of labour with the acquired object cease to 'exclude the common right of other men'? Supposing enough to be attainable, but not all equally good, by what rule must each man choose?

What is the 'basic structure' of society? What does it have to do with Rawls's principles of justice?

-the *primary subject of justice* is the basic structure of society, or more exactly the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation -Rawl's principles of justice describe possible forms of basic structure of society

What is 'self-ownership'? How does the concept of self-ownership relate to Locke's and Nozick's claims about the ownership of private property?

-the claim that individuals own themselves - their bodies, talents and abilities, labor, and by extension the fruits or products of their exercise of their talents, abilities and labor -it follows, Nozick says, that they have certain rights, in particular (and here again following Locke) rights to their lives, liberty, and the fruits of their labor. To own something, after all, just is to have a right to it, or, more accurately, to possess the bundle of rights - rights to possess something, to dispose of it, to determine what may be done with it, etc. - that constitute ownership; and thus to own oneself is to have such rights to the various elements that make up one's self.

What are Rawls's two principles of distributive justice? Be familiar with the basic formulation of each. In what sense are these principles egalitarian?

1. *Principle of Equal Liberty*: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. - - - a. *is egalitarian*, since it distributes extensive liberties equally to all persons. 2. *Difference Principle*: Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both - - - a. to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons - - - - - i. is *not egalitarian* but makes benefit for some (those with greater talents, training, etc.) proportionate to their contribution toward benefiting the least advantaged persons. - - - b. attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity. - - - - - i. is also quite *egalitarian*, since it distributes opportunities to be considered for offices and positions in an equal manner

Explain the Wilt Chamberlain illustration. What does Nozick aim to show via this illustration?

1. Let D1 be a distribution according to your favorite pattern for society S, in which each person has Rn holdings. Let S have 1 million members. 2. If D1 is just, then each is entitled to Rn. 3. If each is entitled to Rn, then each may dispose of Rn as she sees fit. 4. Wilt Chamberlain is a member of S. 5. Therefore Wilt Chamberlain has Rn. 6. Suppose each person in S freely contributes .25 of her Rn to Wilt. 7. Therefore, in the resulting distribution D2, Chamberlain has Rn $250,000 and every other member of society has Rn-.25. 8. The distribution in D2 will now unequal to D1. 9. But D2 resulted from a just initial distribution plus free exchanges. 10. So D2 is just, but violates the pattern that determined D1. -Nozick aims to show the problems of the principles of distributive justice

What is Nozick's criticism of Rawls's egalitarian theory of justice?

Nozick criticizes Rawl's egalitarian theory of justice because - - -it's patterned distribution of goods alters the concept of possession and will make any changes in the pattern such as giving unjust - - - - -Nozick's concept of ownership: a right to do whatever you choose with what is your own. - - -There is no central distributor, no person or group entitled to control all the resources, jointly deciding how they are to be doled out - - -it is not true that a person deserves something only if he also deserves whatever he used, including natural talents, to obtain it - - - - -Nozick rejects the veil of ignorance should hide natural abilities - - -Possessions that people are entitled to may not be seized to provide equality of opportunity for others

What are some challenges to Nozick's account of just appropriation? You should be familiar with the basic details of Nozick's castaway and waterhole cases that he uses to illustrate the implications of his account of just initial appropriation.

Rawls challenges Nozick's defence of property rights. Much of what people own is the result of people's social position and their natural talents, both of which are morally arbitrary. Therefore, any inequalities in ownership are unjust. Furthermore, what rights people have to property can't be decided before deciding on the principles of justice. People don't have a right to the earnings their talents bring them, only to that share which they keep according to the principles of distributive justice.

Who said, "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do."

Robert Nozick

Who said, "Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor ... Seizing the results of someone's labor is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities."

Robert Nozick