College of St. Benedict/St John’s University Climate, Society, and Technology A Justice Framework   Joe DesJardins College of St. Benedict/St John’s University Minnesota

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.” John Rawls, A Theory of Justice “Listen—I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.” Thrasymachus Justice defined as the ruling norm for social interactions (as truth is the ruling norm for thinking) – how human beings should interact with each other Thrasyamchus’ skeptical response – there is no such norm that can be rationally defended – thus, it is all power politics. The power line lady. And the view of the vulnerable / disadvantaged / “weaker”

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE:   DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: HOW SHOULD THE BENEFITS AND BURDENS OF LIVING TOGETHER BE DISTRIBUTED? “To each their due” “To each what they deserve” Many parts of justice. . . But we’ll look at distributive: Standard definition or understanding of justice is: To each their due: Plato, Aristotle, Cicero

“To each what they deserve”   “To each their due” “To each what they deserve” but . . . What is “due”? What is to be distributed? According to what standard? and 2. “to” whom? Who counts in “each”? But, disagreements over what is due; and the range of people covered. what is the membership of the class “each”

What is “Due”? “Content” or “substantive” theories Procedural theories   What is “Due”? “Content” or “substantive” theories (classical Greek, Christian, religious theories) “telos” “Thick” theory of the Good Procedural theories (How people get treated, rather than what they get) PARTICIPATORY JUSTICE DESERVE RESPECT Human Dignity tied to nature as free and rational/autonomous There is a good life for human beings and justice is attained with the attainment of those goods; A “thick” and univocal theory of Good. And to be distributed according to desert/natural abilities. BUT paternalism and empirically false ? (think Locke and the “age of discovery”) A shift from WHAT to HOW . . . .for distributive questions Procedural: treating someone with disrespect is to treat them unjustly. HOW rather than WHAT, Justice consists not in receiving certain goods, but in being treated in certain ways. Two aspects, sometimes in tension, of that idea are liberty and equality

RESPECT/DIGNITY DUE TO HUMANS BY VIRTURE OF THEIR HUMANITY Libertarian Equally [______________________________________] “Thin” Theory of the Good    “thicker” theory of the Good LIBERTY-BASED / LIBERTARIAN JUSTICE Left alone: liberty/ freedom from interference RAWLSIAN JUSTICE-AS-FAIRNESS Equality of primary Goods and Basic Liberties SEN/ NUSSBAUM “CAPABILITIES” APPROACH “Real Freedom” requires equality of capability to achieve well-being Primary Goods: welfare, income, liberties, respect Capabilities: life, bodily health and integrity, affiliation, emotions, senses/imagination, play, relationship w/ other species

John Rawls and Capabilities Certain basic goods (primary / capabilities) as necessary conditions for a good human life, whatever one chooses that to be. Justice as a modus vivendi for getting along when interests conflict Rawls “A” Theory of Justice; justice a fairness, as a modus vivendi for getting along when interests conflict 2nd principle: how do we distrbute th benefits and burdens of living together? A particularly egregious injustice if the least advantaged are made worse off by inequalities – think Thrasymachus

What is due to people who do not exist? To Whom? Expanding range over time . . . from Plato/Aristotle  universal rights of “man” but . . . “Non-Human living beings”? “Future Generations” ? What is due to people who do not exist? Treat equals (and only equals) equally . . . . and UNEQUALS unequally . . . So what counts as an “equal”? Think Brundtland Commission on “Sustainable development” – meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own”

WHAT DO FUTURE PEOPLE DESERVE FROM US? Challenges: Disappearing Beneficiaries Arg’t from Ignorance Discounting Equality for the present generation Bottom line” these challenges can be met, and I think we can talk meaningfully about responsibilities to future generations, about justice to them and injustce to them.

Equal / “Real” opportunity to pursue their own ends EGALITARIAN JUSTICE: Equal / “Real” opportunity to pursue their own ends Equal / “Real” opportunity to meet their own needs “Better off than they would have been” Specifically? I would offer three: alternative energy conserve resources limit population Beyond justice? What will they care about/know/experience ? Preservation: species, wilderness Equal opportunity might arguably be made by more libertarian theories of justice (think Locke on property and proviso)