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

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.
EM Winter Read for Friday  Chapter  Cases Eminent Domain Battling Over Bottled Water  Articles Isbister: Income distribution Maxwell:
Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy
Justice as Fairness by John Rawls.
John Rawls. Most important pol phil of 20 th cent? No ? The most important lib. Represented academic left vs people like Isaiah Berlin and Robert Nozick.
PHIL 104 (STOLZE) Notes on Heather Widdows, Global Ethics: An Introduction, chapter 4.
Chapter Three: Justice and Economic Distribution
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,
John Rawls' theory of justice ~ slide 1 John Rawls’ theory of justice zIn A Theory of Justice –1. The basis for the theory äA revised version of.
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.
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.
What is a Just Society? What is Justice?.
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.
January 20, Liberalism 2. Social Contract Theory 3. Utilitarianism and Intuitionism 4. Justice as Fairness – general conception 5. Principles.
An Introduction to Ethics Week Nine: Distributive Justice and Torture.
Equality and Inequality: Perspectives from Political Theory
BAM321 Business Ethics and Social Responsibility Session 7 Business and Management.
CRITICAL QUESTION How should the bounty of a society be distributed?
Ethics Theory and Business Practice
Ethical Theories Presentation LP 5 Melissa Sweet, Tara Guelig, Katherine Norton April 9 th,2009.
Distributive Justice II: John Rawls Ethics Dr. Jason M. Chang.
AP/SOSC 2340/ o Intermediate Business & Society Lecture 4: Libertarianism.
Rawls II: Another version of the social contract PHIL 2345.
Rawls on justice Michael Lacewing co.uk.
Contractualism and justice (1) Introduction to Rawls’s theory.
Ideas about Justice Three big themes Virtue Ethics Utilitarianism
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.
Justice as Fairness John Rawls PHL 110: ETHICS North Central College.
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.
John Rawls Theory of Justice. John Rawls John Rawls (February 21, 1921 – November 24, 2002) was an American philosopher and a figure in moral and political.
John Rawls John Rawls believes that a just system of distribution should be based on considerations of equality of rights and principles of fairness.
Equity: Ethical Approaches to Social Justice “Excuse me, but its important to get those drinks to those who need them the most.”
WEEK 2 Justice as Fairness. A Theory of Justice (1971) Political Liberalism (1993)
Libertarianism and the Philosophers Lecture 5 Contractarian Approaches: David Gauthier and T.M. Scanlon.
BEJ Lecture Three: Justice and Resources Distribution.
Justice. What is justice? It seems we develop a sense of fairness from an early age and most people would agree with Plato that the only life worth living.
Introduction to Politics and International Studies Reach Summer School
PHIL 104 (STOLZE) Notes on Heather Widdows, Global Ethics: An Introduction, chapter 4.
Deontological tradition
Political theory and law
Rawls.
John Rawls Ronald Dworkin
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
Theories of justice.
Ethical Theories Ethical Theories Unit 5.
MODULE 3 By: Chris Martinez.
John Rawls Theory of Justice.
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.
Social and economic inequalities are arranged so that they are both:
Presentation transcript:

Lecture 6 John Rawls

Justifying government Question: How can the power of government be justified?

“Contractarianism” Contractarian answer: legitimacy of government lies in the consent of those who are to be governed. Hypothetical contract

Limits of contracts If we give our consent to something, are we obliged to accept whatever we have agreed? If we agree to X, does that make X fair? (Price-gouging, surrogacy, ‘desperate exchanges’),

Contractarianism (Rawls’ version) To which principles of justice would we agree if we were to choose them from behind a “veil of ignorance”?

Veil of ignorance If we had to choose the institutions of a society in which we were to live without knowing who we would be or which social position we would occupy, which institutions would we choose? ‘Original position’

Utilitarianism Would we choose utilitarianism as a basis for the principles of justice? Rawls’ answer: No

Why not utilitarianism? Utilitarianism might be attractive to egalitarians because it allows redistribution from rich to poor people if utility is increased thereby. But what about minority rights, forced expropriation, etc.?

Rawls’ 2 principles of justice 1)Each person has equal right to liberties compatible with similar liberties for everyone else. 2)Social and economic inequality must be (a) to the advantage of the least well off, and (b) ‘attached to positions and offices open to all’.

Rawls’ first principle Basic liberties: a)Political (right to vote and stand for office) b)Freedom of speech, thought, religion c)Freedom of occupation d)Right to own property e)Freedom from arbitrary arrest

Rawls’ second principle The ‘difference principle’: Inequalities are permitted only if the less well off will benefit from them. (‘Maximin’ principle) Examples of inequality: 1)Income and wealth 2)Positions of power in hierarchical organizations

What makes the ‘original position’ fair? Rawls’ ‘original position’ is characterized by equality amongst the parties thereto because they are ignorant on their personal characteristics. The parties to the OP must therefore choose social & political institutions impartially.

Four societies 1)Feudal (unequal opportunity according to birth) 2)Free market (unequal opportunity according socio-economic position) 3)Meritocratic (unequal opportunity according to distribution of natural talents) 4)Egalitarian.

Natural talents Does an individual deserve to keep the higher income she might earn from the natural talents she has? Rawls’ answer: no Compare Nozick’s Wilt Chamberlain example

Desert and entitlement What do individuals deserve in Rawls’ schema?