Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Justice & Economic Distribution (2)

Advertisements

Libertarianism and the Philosophers Lecture 4

Rawlsian Contract Approach Attempts to reconcile utilitarianism and intuitionism. Attempts to reconcile utilitarianism and intuitionism. Theory of distributive.

John Rawls A Theory of Justice.

2 H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n © Oxford University Press, All rights reserved. Chapter 3: Political theory: Social justice and the state Barr: Economics.

Lecture 6 John Rawls. Justifying government Question: How can the power of government be justified?

Chapter Three: Justice and Economic Distribution

360 Business Ethics Chapter 4. Moral facts derived from reason Reason has three properties that have bearing on moral facts understood as the outcomes.

Sustainable Development – defining the concept Quest of all of us.

Justice as Fairness by John Rawls.

L To distribute goods and services fairly, protecting everyone’s right to equal opportunity and bettering the lives of all members of society (liberalism:

Egalitarians View Egalitarians hold that there are no relevant differences among people that can justify unequal treatment. According to the egalitarian,

RAWLS 1 JUSTICE IS FAIRNESS. John Rawls Teachers: H. L. A. Hart Isaiah Berlin Students: Thomas Nagel Martha Nussbaum Onara O’Neill.

John Rawls, Who? GETTING TO THE ASSIGNED ARTICLE: A THEORY OF JUSTICE (1971) HOW WERE PEOPLE THINKG ABOUT ETHICS AND JUSTICE? – Utilitarian.

THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY: Bentham

Ethical Principle of Justice principle of justice –involves giving to all persons their "rights" or "desserts" –the distribution of various resources in.

RAWLS 2 CRITIQUES OF RAWLS.

Thomas Hobbes ( ) l Fear of others in the state of nature (apart from society) prompts people to form governments through a social contract l State.

Contemporary Liberalism: John Rawls: Justice as Fairness l All citizens should share in a society’s wealth and be given equal economic opportunities l.

Deontological tradition Contractualism of John Rawls Discourse ethics.

A Theory of Justice. “What is justice?” The Code of Hammurabi (Babylon, 18 th c. BCE) Judaism, Christianity, Islam: scales (balance, regulation, harmony),

Rawls John Rawls ( ): A Theory of Justice (Harvard UP, 1971) -and other books, notably Political Liberalism (1990) -and Justice as Fairness Restated.

Andrea Wellenstein, Jill Kollmann, Heather Lammers, and Britni Klein Monday at 1:30-4:30 Ethical Theories Presentations April 6 th, 2010.

January 20, Liberalism 2. Social Contract Theory 3. Utilitarianism and Intuitionism 4. Justice as Fairness – general conception 5. Principles.

Introduction to Ethics Lecture 19 Regan & The Case for Animal Rights By David Kelsey.

Chapter One: Moral Reasons

JUSTICE OR FAIRNESS APPROACH

 Rawls was influenced by Kant and Aristotle  An American Philosopher  Wrote the Following: A Theory of Justice, Political Liberalism, The Law of Peoples,

INCOME REDISTRIBUTION: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES

BAM321 Business Ethics and Social Responsibility Session 7 Business and Management.

Ethics Theory and Business Practice

Distributive Justice II: John Rawls Ethics Dr. Jason M. Chang.

Rawls on justice Michael Lacewing co.uk.

Contractualism and justice (1) Introduction to Rawls’s theory.

CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY P H I L O S O P H Y A Text with Readings TENTH EDITION M A N U E L V E L A S Q U E Z.

Justice Paradox of Justice Small volcanic island has two villages, “South Town” (Pop 300) and “North Village” (Pop 500). Threat of devastating volcanic.

LIBERTY, EQUALITY AND JUSTICE GONDA YUMITRO. LIBERTY Liberty is the ultimate moral ideal. Individuals have rights to life, liberty, and property that.

Ideas about Justice Three big themes Virtue Ethics Utilitarianism

Chapter One: Moral Reasons Review Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings (10 th ed.) Julie C. Van Camp, Jeffrey Olen, Vincent Barry Cengage Learning/Wadsworth.

January 20, Liberalism 2. Social Contract Theory 3. Utilitarianism and Intuitionism 4. Justice as Fairness – general conception 5. Principles.

Distributive Justice John Rawls. Which is better? MusicCheese 65.

1. Give an example not in your book that would illustrate the concept of “compensating differential.” Less desirable places to live Low wage advancement.

Justice and Economic Distribution

Egalitarian Liberalism: Justice in the Modern State

Three Modern Approaches. Introduction Rawls, Nozick, and MacIntyre Rawls, Nozick, and MacIntyre Have significant new approaches Have significant new approaches.

Rawls & Nozick Liberalism & Libertarianism Warwick Debating Society Training, 11/05/2011.

Justice as Fairness by John Rawls. Rawls looks at justice. Kant’s ethics and Utilitarianism are about right and wrong actions. For example: Is it ethical.

Justice/Fairness Approach Learning Plan #5 Sara Deibert, Sara Roxbury, Allie Forsythe, Robert Phillips March 31,2008.

Rationality in Decision Making In Law Nisigandha Bhuyan, IIMC.

Consenting Adults Reading By Robert Pollock. Moral Equivalency? American academia and media were rife with the notion that the United States and the Soviet.

Equity: Ethical Approaches to Social Justice “Excuse me, but its important to get those drinks to those who need them the most.”

Deontological Approaches Consequences of decisions are not always the most important elements as suggested by the consequentialist approach. The way you.

WEEK 2 Justice as Fairness. A Theory of Justice (1971) Political Liberalism (1993)

Social Ethics continued Immanuel Kant John Rawls.

Introduction to Politics and International Studies Reach Summer School

PHIL 104 (STOLZE) Notes on Heather Widdows, Global Ethics: An Introduction, chapter 4.

History of Philosophy.

Marxism PSIR308.

Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance

John Rawls’ theory of justice

Justice distribution “Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under.

Rawls’ Theory of Justice

Theory of Health Care Ethics

Theories of justice.

Ethical Theories Ethical Theories Unit 5.

INCOME REDISTRIBUTION: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES

Liberalism John Rawls.

A Text with Readings TENTH EDITION M A N U E L V E L A S Q U E Z

Rawls’ Theory of Justice

Professional Ethics (GEN301/PHI200) UNIT 3: JUSTICE AND ECONOMIC DISTRIBUTION Handout #3 CLO#3 Evaluate the relation between justice, ethics and economic.

Presentation transcript:

Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy

Distributive Justice How should the benefits of, and/or the control over, nanotechnology be distributed? Moral issue: principles Practical issue: implementation

John Rawls (1921-2002) Most influential theory of distributive justice in recent decades: A Theory of Justice (1971) Political Liberalism (1993) Justice As Fairness (2001)

John Rawls (1921-2002) A version of contractarianism (standard of rightness is what rational people do, or under appropriate conditions would, agree to) but influenced by Kant (principles must be universalizable and treat people as ends, not mere means)

Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance Considerations that block consensus on principles of justice are also unfair to rely on in choosing such principles: how they impact - one’s interest group - one’s conception of the good

Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance Choose principles of justice as though you don’t know your interest group (race, gender, income, age, health, etc.) and conception of the good (religious, moral, and lifestyle preferences)

Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance Maximin: choose the option whose worst possible outcome is preferable to the worst possible outcome of any rival option. Not a general principle of choice, but a cautious principle for life-affecting decisions. (Does this favor risk-averse conceptions of the good?)

Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance Choose the pie whose smallest piece is bigger than the smallest piece of any rival pie

Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance Egalitarian Rawlsian Utilitarian choice choice choice

Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance Different conceptions of the common good: Utilitarian: aggregate advantage (allows sacrifice of few to many) Rawlsian: mutual advantage (no sacrifice)

Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance The size of a pie of material wealth (and thus the size of its smallest piece) can be affected by how the pieces are distributed (e.g., incentives) The size of a pie of liberty cannot be. Hence: different principles for liberty and for wealth

Rawls’ First Principle of Justice Maximum liberty for each, so far as is consistent with equal liberty for all

Rawls’ Second Principle of Justice Socioeconomic inequalities permissible only if: a) open to all b) beneficial to the least advantaged

Question of Implementation Which politico-economic system in fact best satisfies these principles? Capitalism? Socialism? something else?

Question of Implementation Rawls: largely a question for social scientists, not moral philosophers Ethics sets the standards Economics figures out how to meet them

Some Critics of Rawls Robert Nozick Michael Sandel Susan Okin

Criticisms of Rawls Why does hypothetical consent matter?

Criticisms of Rawls Why does hypothetical consent matter? Are omitted considerations crucial to our identity (Sandel) and/or to our rights (Nozick)?

Criticisms of Rawls Why does hypothetical consent matter? Are omitted considerations crucial to our identity (Sandel) and/or to our rights (Nozick)? Does the enforcement of the 2nd principle violate the liberty protected by the 1st?

A Feminist Criticism Insofar as Rawls is concerned with the distribution of benefits and burdens within society rather than within the family, doesn’t his approach fail to address: a) women’s disproportionate burden of labor within the household b) the family’s role as the context in which expectations of justice are learned?

An Anarchist Criticism Doesn’t the implementation of Rawls’ principles presuppose without argument the legitimacy of the State? Why would people behind the veil of ignorance agree to give this one institution powers denied to all others?

More Criticisms of Rawls Is the 1st principle too skeptical/relativist about the good?

More Criticisms of Rawls Is the 1st principle too skeptical/relativist about the good? Does the 2nd principle require too little equality?

More Criticisms of Rawls Is the 1st principle too skeptical/relativist about the good? Does the 2nd principle require too little equality? Does the 2nd principle require too much equality?

More Criticisms of Rawls Is the 1st principle too skeptical/relativist about the good? Does the 2nd principle require too little equality? Does the 2nd principle require too much equality? Does the 2nd principle treat persons as mere means?

Some of Rawls’ Replies Given human fallibility, unfair to insist on any conception of the good one wouldn’t agree to behind the Veil of Ignorance.

Some of Rawls’ Replies Given human fallibility, unfair to insist on any conception of the good one wouldn’t agree to behind the Veil of Ignorance. Given dependence of assets (natural or external) on luck, unfair to insist on pre-Veil rights to these

Possible Counter-replies Why does human fallibility impact conceptions of the good but not conceptions of justice?

Possible Counter-replies Why does human fallibility impact conceptions of the good but not conceptions of justice? Why do considerations of luck affect one’s assets but not one’s human status?

Rawls vs. Critics And the debate continues ….