Rawls John Rawls ( ): A Theory of Justice (Harvard UP, 1971) -and other books, notably Political Liberalism (1990) -and Justice as Fairness Restated ( posthumous) BACKGROUND: the “Circumstances of Justice” - people are mortal, finite, of varying abilities and have different “theories of the good” - cooperation can pay: we are not in a zero-sum game - everyone knows that everyone is rational (+ the above info) - people are “non-tuistic” -- they don’t “take an interest in one another’s interests” [this needs some explaining] -[so far, this is Hobbes and Hume]

Rawls Rawls’ METHODOLOGICAL IDEA: “Reflective Equilibrium” - Rawls says that we work from our “considered judgments” on various moral matters. - Some unspecified set of those is said to be such that we would not be willing to give them up. - He also says, however, that they can be modified given a good theory. The idea is that we go back and forth between previously held judgments and theory - We aim at the best mix of the two - hence, “reflective equilibrium”, the position from which we don’t move in either direction.

Rawls THE THEORY 1. THE ORIGINAL POSITION: Rawls says he is taking the idea of the social contract to a “higher level of abstraction” - Principles of Justice are not self-evident, but conceived as a general social agreement made in an “Original Position”: The Agreement is Hypothetical, not actual and takes place “Behind a Veil of Ignorance” - No one knows his own situation or personal characteristics - Everyone knows the Circumstances of Justice - But we are to reach an “agreement” that is permanently binding to all Terms of Negotiation: the “social primary goods”...

Rawls Primary Goods Defined: these are what anybody wants, no matter what else he wants (they are the general means for promoting one’s life) - Specific conceptions of the good are not allowed - Utility not allowed... These are primary socially distributable goods - not just any goods [There are also “Natural goods”: Health; Intelligence; Imagination - but These are not directly under social control, though “influenced by the basic structure”] Rawls’ List of “Primary Goods”: Liberties -- Powers -- Opportunities -- Income -- Wealth -- Self-respect Assumption: Each wants to maximize his personal index of Primary Goods note: how would you measure this? -- a big problem!

Rawls The General Argument: Nobody knows who he is, so the safe working assumption is Equality Equality is the “benchmark of justice” But inequalities are acceptable if they are of benefit to everyone... Derived: (1) The General Conception of Justice: “All social primary goods are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored” [Tj 303] [later it becomes: “to the maximum advantage of the least favored” It has been called the “favor the bottom” principle.]

Rawls (2) Specific Conception: The Two Principles of Justice FIRST PRINCIPLE: Each Person is to have an Equal Right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compaptible with a similar system for all SECOND PRINCIPLE: Social and Economic Inequalities are to be arranged so that they are - (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged [the “maximin (or “difference”) principle”] (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity NOTE: The principles are “LEXICALLY ORDERED”: P1 first P2a second P2b third

Rawls Priority Rules: First rule: Liberty can be restricted only for the sake of liberty 1 - A less extensive liberty must strengthen the total system of liberty shared by all 2 - A less than equal liberty must be acceptable to those with the lesser liberty Second rule: The second principle is lexically prior to the principle of efficiency and to that of maximizing the sum of advantages; fair opportunity is prior to the maximin principle 1 - An inequality of opportunity must enhance the opportunity of those with the lesser opportunity 2 - An excessive rate of saving must on balance mitigate the burden of those bearing this hardship -> We then get to the “constitutional” level by slowly “lifting the veil of ignorance” [Rawls envisages that we would have broadly democratic institutions. In his second book, these are assumed...]

Rawls The Big question -Rawls’ first principle looks like the familiar liberty principle of classical liberalism -(maybe: but Rawls does not accept a general right to liberty. He instead insists on a -- List [the liberties to be itemized] -- not clear why this should be so - But the second principle does not - In fact, On the face of it, there is a huge conflict between the two principles: -- IF we have full economic liberty, then we cannot be taxed to support the Difference Principle. -- IF we don’t, then how do we justify any rectifiable inequality? -- See my article, “A Puzzle about Economic Justice in Rawls’ Theory” -[on my website] -- Rawls says that it might be justified by considerations of incentive - Question: how can incentive justify what would otherwise be unjust? -[if Equality is the “benchmark of justice”, then I don’t excuse myself from its - requirements by just insisting on more as the price for my hard work! -- something’s wrong! -- in my view, it’s the presumption of distributive equality as a right.

Rawls Why the second principle? Rawls famously argues that we cannot be said to “deserve” our natural assets -this is, of course, true. -(for example, our genetic assets: prior to them, we didn’t exist! But once we are born, we have them - it’s too late to un-do them!) The question is, so what? From the fact that we do not deserve our assets, it does not follow that we do not deserve the things we can get by using those assets - which is what Rawls is claiming

Rawls Robert Nozick ( ) His masterwork: Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) -Argues that anarchy would lead to a “minimal state” -- but no more -- Argues against Rawls’s “Patterning” theory of justice -- sides with Locke: a distribution is just if it’s arrived at voluntarily - argues that Rawls’ claim that his difference principle is “fair” is implausible -“Here” - say the untalented - “we propose the following terms: WE get AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE -- This would look pretty bad if proposed by the talented - why doesn’t it look similarly bad if proposed by the untalented? - Hard to avoid the general conclusion supporting the classical liberals: the fundamental principle of justice is the non-harm principle: “maximum liberty for all” -- this is not what governments respect, however! -----

Rawls Issues -Democracy -Is it really just? -problems: it looks as though the majority can (and will) steamroller a minority -question: is liberalism really compatible with democracy? -Today’s democratic constitutions are hybrids: some rights of citizens, but little real limit on what the legislature can do Welfare It is still unclear, 2400 years later, whether governments are basically gangs of thieves -a fair amount of imposed “equality” is the rule -an enormous amount of regulation on all fronts Foreign Policy free trade? what sort of wars? Why? -much is unsettled!