Social Contract Theory Hobbes Nozick Rawls

Determinate individuals in a Hobbesian schema have only instrumental value—Hobbesian moral theory gives no reason to respect those whom we have no need to cooperate—powerful need not value or respect moral constraints. What is missing from the Hobbesian approach is the essential notion that human beings are intrinsically valuable.   Difficulties

Nozick and Libertarianism Free Market Justice

Nozick Robert Nozick was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1938, and he taught at Harvard University until his death in January 2002. Encountering the works of such defenders of capitalism as F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Ayn Rand eventually led him to shift his philosophical focus away from the technical issues then dominating analytic philosophy and toward political theory. The result was his first and most famous book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), an ingenious defense of libertarianism that immediately took on canonical status as the major right-wing philosophical counterpoint to his Harvard colleague John Rawls's influential defense of social-democratic liberalism, A Theory of Justice (1971).

Libertarian Justice Libertarianism identifies justice with the ideal of liberty, not social utility or justice. As long as you are not doing something that interferes with anyone else’s liberty, then no person, group or government should disturb you in living the life that you choose—not even if doing so would maximize total happiness or make the world more just. No regulation of sexual activity, no draft, no drug laws, and no taxes except those to support a minimal or “night-watchman” state. Can’t be forced to support anything you have not freely chosen. Nozick’s view is not quite anarchy (the state can do nothing) or “a state of nature” but as close to it as possible.

Nozick’s Theory of Justice Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) People have certain basic “Lockean rights’ that are negative (see below) and natural (independent of institutions). “A state would arise from anarchy (as represented in Locke’s state of nature) even though no one intended this or tried to bring it about, by a process which would need not violate anyone’s rights” (p.xi). An invisible hand generates a minimal state. Negative rights are rights that impose on others a duty to refrain from certain behaviors. [Self-defense, punishment of rights violators, and noninterference with self and property]. These negative natural rights impose absolute restrictions or side constraints on how we may act. As autonomous, responsible agents we must be completely free from coercion [emphasis added] (109).

Nozick’s Entitlement Theory People are entitled to their holdings (that is, goods, money, and property) as long as they have acquired them fairly. According to Nozick’s entitlement theory only free market exchanges respect people as equals or as “ends in themselves.” However, no matter what degree of well-being the market produces it would be justified. The entitlement theory defines three principles or rules of justice: acquisition, transfer, and rectification.

Nozick’s Three Principles of Justice Acquisition principle: Persons are entitled to holdings initially acquired in a just way (according to the Lockean Proviso that natural resources, such as land, come to be rightfully owned by the first person to appropriate it as long as “enough and as good” is left for others to use*). Transfer principle: Holdings (actually) freely acquired from others who acquired them in a just way are justly acquired. Rectification principle: Rectify past injustices by restoring holdings to their rightful owners: those who would have held it if the injustice had not occurred. If people's current holdings are justly acquired, then the transfer principle alone determines whether subsequent distributions are just. Consequently, any taxation over the amount required to preserve institutions of just transfer, acquisition and rectification—i.e., preserving entitlements—according to Nozick, is unjust.

The Chamberlain Example The Chamberlain example purportedly proves that any free disposition of our holdings is just. Collective form of forced or coerced market decision. The outcome of the market is morally legitimate, even if it is not in sync with the individual conscience. A commitment to liberty forces libertarians to reject all interference with the free market because market interference violates someone’s liberty. Libertarians assume that everyone wants an American style consumer driven society. Since Libertarians understand freedom in terms of their theory of rights, they build a commitment to private property into their concept of liberty. It follows that:

What Libertarians Value What libertarians value “are Lockean, property rights, which then set the parameters of liberty. Libertarians frequently contend (1) that private property is necessary for freedom and (2) that any society that doesn’t respect private property rights is coercive. But libertarianism makes (1) true by definition and (2) is incorrect. Any system of property ownership...necessarily puts restrictions on people’s conduct; its rules are coercive” (112). Libertarians often use “coercive” ambiguously. What could non-coercive governance mean? Moreover, what is a non-coercive market? While voluntary, informed exchanges between two people may be beneficial, but this does not make a free society possible. A voluntary and informed exchange between two parties may have dramatically negative consequences for third parties—billions of free-market transactions result in some third parties starving to death: that is neither, voluntary nor informed, nor an exchange. Libertarians project the image of a free individual with moral autonomy but demand that the individual accept the outcome of market forces no matter what they are! (See Paul Treanor—Why is Libertarianism Wrong?)

Free Markets and Freedom For Nozick, both free markets and property rights are virtually sacrosanct. Both are essential for people to exercise their fundamental freedoms. People can only be encouraged to give charity—nothing can be taken. While people are at the mercy of the market’s vicissitudes, property rights pre-exist society. However, property rights are not as simple as Nozick suggests. Property rights are neither absolute nor unchanging. “Lockean rights” had more plausibility in the 1700s than they do now and assume that resources acquired are un-owned; remember the tragedy of the commons and the resultant back of Adam Smith’s invisible hand.

Nozick’s Libertarianism Entitlements are rights; they are not a matter of whether you deserve something. All laws restricting conduct between consenting adults are wrong. Libertarianism involves leaving market relations—buying selling, and other arrangements—totally unrestricted. [No product safety or FDA]. It is unjust to coerce people to give food or money to the starving. Are you all libertarians? Do you see any difficulties with this view?

Difficulties Nozick often argues from small scale examples to universal principles. What might work for a few people in the “state of nature” may not work as well in circumstances involving billions of people, complicated political and economic institutions, and thousands of years of history. Moreover, what guarantees that his intuitions from a “state of nature” are correct? Note Hobbes vs. Locke. Any social order that comes about through the “free” market process MUST be accepted because of the principle of non-coercion.

Difficulties Nozick is wrong in holding that benefit to one person can never offset cost to another: sometimes it can. To make sense of utilitarianism, “All one needs is the belief, shared by most people, that it is better for each of ten people to receive a benefit than for one person to receive it, worse for 10 people to be harmed than for one person to be similarly harmed, etc...If a choice among such alternatives does not involve the violation of any rights or entitlements, but only the allocation of limited time or resources, then we regard these comparisons as excellent reasons for picking one alternative rather than another. See Nagel—Yale Law Review, 85, 1976—page 136f.

Difficulties Property rights do not seem absolute, only prima facie. He denies that any of the rights he detects may be overridden merely to do good or to prevent evil. Example: I can’t take your anthrax laced letters from you if you are on the way into the post office to mail them? I can’t regulate toxic waste disposal or the externalities of business? Libertarians take for granted the well-ordered state and it’s institutions. Their minimal state would have to be much larger than they suppose. What about drug dealer property confiscations?

As British sociologist L. T. Hobhouse apply puts it: Difficulties As British sociologist L. T. Hobhouse apply puts it: “The organizer of industry who thinks he has ‘made’ himself and his business has found a whole social system ready to his hand in skilled workers, machinery, a market, peace and order—a vast apparatus and a pervasive atmosphere, the joint creation of millions of men and scores of generations. Take away the whole social factor, and we have not Robinson Crusoe with his salvage from the wreck and his acquired knowledge, but the native savage living on roots, berries, and vermin.”

Difficulties To a carpenter all problems can be solved with a hammer—for Nozick the free market and private property rights does all. To the libertarian market incentives and personal property rights yield optimum solutions for economic and environmental problems, but neither theory, nor practice, nor history support this claim. Moreover, libertarians regard the morally well-ordered liberal society as a free gift, to which nothing is owed for its maintenance. This is profoundly wrong.

Review Slide with questions: Nozick’s Libertarianism Entitlements are rights; they are not a matter of whether you deserve something. Inheritance? All laws restricting conduct between consenting adults are wrong. Prostitution? Libertarianism involves leaving market relations—buying selling, and other arrangements—totally unrestricted. Caveat Emptor? It is unjust to coerce people to give food or money to the starving. What is an economy for? Libertarians take the existence of a stable social order for granted.

John Rawls’ Theory of Justice Rawls’ theory is a modern alternative to utilitarianism or libertarianism that he hopes will be compatible with the belief that justice must be associated with fairness and the moral equality of persons. It's a hypothetical contract theory. Justice is more than social utility (Utilitarianism). John Rawls argues in A Theory of Justice (1971) that in the original position, a group of rational and impartial trustees will establish a mutually beneficial principle of justice as the foundation for regulating all rights, duties, power, and wealth.

The Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance The OP is a hypothetical or imaginary position where people come together to choose the principles of justice. We must agree on these principles in our hypothetical social contract rationally and self-interestedly but from behind a veil of ignorance, i.e, not knowing our social position or status in society, including our race, sex, religion, wealth, talents, ultimate values, or aims in life. From behind a veil of ignorance, parties must be equally concerned for the interests of everyone and are more likely to adopt fair rules. The people choosing principles do have a wide knowledge of psychology, economics, politics, and sociology.

Primary Social Goods What it is fair to expect a political society to provide us with are primary social goods. Rawls’ basic list, the most extensive he gave, is as follows: a. basic rights and liberties; b. freedom of movement and free choice of occupation against a background of diverse opportunities; c. powers and prerogatives of offices and positions of responsibility in the political and economic institutions of the basic structure; d. income and wealth; and finally, e. the social bases of self-respect. People with diverse goals, interests, and talents will want more rather than fewer of what Rawls calls primary social goods: income and wealth, rights, liberties, opportunities, status, and self-respect.

Primary Social Goods When considering the basic structure of a society, what is at issue are only primary social goods—goods which are generally necessary for achieving whatever goals one happens to have. Allowing for an acceptable minimum, persons so situated would strive to maximize their list of primary social goods regardless of how others fared. This means that persons in the original position would not be influenced by affection, envy, or rancor. For example, they would not choose to lower their expectations merely to avoid raising the expectations of someone else. Rather, each would seek to maximize his or her own expectations even when this required that others have even greater expectations.

Original Position Choices People behind the veil of ignorance would choose conservatively and not gamble with their futures. People would NOT adopt a utilitarian standard because they might end up in the group whose well-being was sacrificed for the greater good. People would follow the maximin rule in the original position because that rule would guide people to make the best choice under uncertainty. In fact, the OP is designed with the maximin rule in mind.

The Maximin Rule People in the original position, Rawls says should follow the maximin rule for making decisions. This rule says that you should select the alternative under which the worst that could happen to you is better than the worst that could happen to you under any other alternative; that is you should maximize the minimum that you will receive. Since a person does not know who they are in the real world, they must be prepared to end up being anyone. There are a lot of different societies the persons in the original position could design. So each person will want to pick the one society that offers the least bad alternative, meaning they will pick the society that has its least fortunate individuals in the least unfortunate situation—the bottom of society would be doing the best.

The Maximin Rule Rawls suggests a simple way to understand decisions made in the original position: two persons have a piece of cake to share between them by cutting it into two pieces. They each like the cake and want as big a piece as possible. They agree that one of them will cut the cake once and the other will get to choose one of the two pieces. This guarantees that the cake will be shared fairly. This is the maximin rule applied to just two persons. Rawls admits that the whole theory is designed to fit a proper sense of justice. Rawls concludes that the persons in the original position will agree to a society that obeys the two principles of justice.

First Principle of Justice Rawls states the two basic principles of justice as follows: First Principle Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.” (A Theory of Justice (1971) p. 302)

Second Principle of Justice Social and economic inequities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged[1], consistent with the savings principle[2], and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.” (A Theory of Justice (1971) p. 302) 1The Difference Principle 2with an allowance for just savings, i.e. preserving the culture and civilization for future generations.

The Difference Principle The principle that economic and social advantages for the better-off members of a society are justified only if they benefit the worst-off. For example, differences in income, wealth, and status among different professions and social groups can be defended as just only if they are produced by a system of incentives, market forces, and capital accumulation whose productivity makes even unskilled laborers better off than they would be in a more equal system. Rawls argues that the more fortunate cannot be said to morally deserve either their inherited wealth or the natural talents that enable them to command higher pay in the labor market, so the justification for an economic system which rewards people unequally must come from its benefits to everyone. This is a strongly egalitarian principle, which doesn't permit inequalities even if the advantage to the better-off is greater than the disadvantage to the worst-off. It also denies that people are naturally entitled to the product of their natural abilities. The principle has therefore drawn resistance both from utilitarians and from those who believe that inequalities resulting from natural endowments are morally arbitrary, and require no further justification. (Adapted from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy).

First Priority Rule (The Priority of Liberty) The principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order and therefore liberty can be restricted only for the sake of liberty. There are two cases: (a) a less extensive liberty must strengthen the liberty shared by all; (b) a less than equal liberty must be acceptable to those with the lesser liberty. (Rawls, 302)

Two Priority Rules Second Priority Rule (The Priority of Justice over Efficiency and Welfare) The second principle of justice is lexically prior to the principle of efficiency and to that of maximizing the sum of advantages; and fair opportunity is prior to the difference principle. There are two cases: (a) an inequality of opportunity must enhance the opportunities with those with the lesser opportunity; (b) an excessive rate of saving must on balance mitigate the burden of those bearing this hardship. General Conception All social primary goods—liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect—are to be distributed equally unless and unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored” (Rawls 302-303)

Liberties The liberties Rawls is talking about are: political liberty (the right to vote and to be eligible for public office) freedom of speech and assembly liberty of conscience and freedom of thought freedom of the person along with the right to hold (personal) property freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure However, Rawls is not talking about complete liberty to do, to have, or to keep absolutely anything.

The inequalities Rawls is talking about are: inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth inequalities set up by institutions that use differences in authority and responsibility or chains of command Rawls says these two principles of justice are lexically ordered*: society cannot justify a decrease in liberty by an increase in social and economic advantages.

Difficulties What relevance does the hypothetical outcomes in the original position have for our intentions in the actual world? A bridge from the hypothetical world to the actual world must be constructed. Is it obvious in all cultures that the maximin principle or Rawls’ two principles would best achieve fairness or be the principle(s) agreed on? Rawls system tolerates large income gaps provided they can be shown to work to the advantage of the worst off.

Summary Rawls proposes a hypothetical contract in which rational but self-interested people in the original position situated behind a veil of ignorance would follow the maximin rule for making decisions and agree on the two principles of justice described. He rejects utilitarianism for its unfair distribution of burdens and benefits and the Nozick's entitlement theory for its focus on individual transactions instead of the basic social structure. Rawls contends that society is a cooperative project for mutual benefit and that justice requires the social and economic consequences of arbitrary natural differences be minimized.