An Introduction to Ethics Week Nine: Distributive Justice and Torture

Distributive Justice Answers to questions on distributive justice are answers to the question: “how should we distribute the products of social cooperation among the community’s citizens?” This is often a meta-economic question – ‘who should get what?’

Distributive Justice Two main theories. 1. John Rawls (‘A Theory of Justice’) 2. Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia)

Distributive Justice John Rawls First principle of justice – equal civil liberties for all citizens is guaranteed (even at the expense of economic flourishing). One citizen’s liberty may not be sacrificed for the benefit of the majority. Only after these liberties are secure may we move on to set up a system for distributing social goods…

Distributive Justice Economic goods should be distributed in such a way as to maximize the advantage of the least advantaged members of society. Justifies inequality. ‘The difference principle’ Society’s ‘worst off’ have a life (or so the idea goes) that is decent.

Distributive Justice How does Rawls arrive here? Veil of ignorance.

Distributive Justice How does Rawls arrive here? Veil of ignorance. “What principle of justice would I adopt if I knew my talents, interests, and station in life?” Vs. “What principles of justice would I adopt if I were ignorant of my talent, interests, and station in life?”

Distributive Justice Question One Asking the first question removes impartiality. Is this important? Removes any chance of consensus. Is this important?

Distributive Justice Question Two Removes capacity for self promotion. Aims to promote society’s interest as a whole. (You never know where you might end up.) Promotes consensus. Reduces the influence luck plays in a person’s life.

Distributive Justice Luck? We should give people what they deserve, and what they deserve should be a product of their freely chosen action. ‘Accident’s of birth’ (status, wealth, intelligence &c.) should not determine one’s life prospects. Thoughts? Should morality aim to constrict the role luck plays in our life?

Distributive Justice Robert Nozick The aim of justice is not to achieve any ‘patterned’ form of distribution. In fact, Nozick claims, the state does not have the right to distribute economic goods. Why?

Distributive Justice Individuals already own the goods prior to the state taking them into their control. A person is ‘entitled’ to a certain good if she meets one of three conditions…

Distributive Justice Nozick’s ‘Entitlement Theory’ 1. Justice in Acquisition: ‘A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding.’ 2. Justice in Transfer: ‘A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding.’ 3. Rectification of Injustice: ‘No one is entitled to a holding except by repeated applications of (1) and (2).’

Distributive Justice Nozick’s ‘Entitlement Theory’ 1. Claims that a person has a right to something if the original acquisition was just. 2. Claims that a person has a right to something if it was a gift, or it was sold to them by, a person who justly acquired it (satisfies (1)). 3. Claims that only those who own things in virtue of repeated applications of (1) and (2) own things justly.

Distributive Justice Theft and Nazi art? Marx and original acquisition…

Distributive Justice Back to the state… Does the state acquire goods in accordance with Nozick’s rules? The problem of tax.

Distributive Justice For Nozick, the person who deserves the ‘good’ (whatever the good is) is the person who has come to own it justly (the person who satisfies one of the three conditions) – regardless of need or luck. Thoughts?

Torture

Two competing views: 1. Torture is justified only if there is a significant threat to national security (the current position of the U.S. government). 2. Torture is never justified – even if there is a significant threat to national security (the current (official) position of the U.K. government).

Torture Two problems for position one. 1. What counts a significant threat to national security? 2. Doesn’t torture undermine the values we are trying to uphold?

Torture Significant threat to national security. Gravity Scope Future

Torture Gravity: Imagine a case where a prankster has managed to lace the milk of a distributor (you don’t know which one) with a ‘poison’ that will make ten people burp uncontrollably for three minutes. You have caught the prankster and he is refusing to tell you which milk distributor’s load contains the poison. Is the state within it’s rights to torture the prankster?

Torture Gravity: Imagine a case where a prankster has managed to lace the milk of a distributor (you don’t know which one) with a ‘poison’ that will make ten people burp uncontrollably for three minutes. You have caught the prankster and he is refusing to tell you which milk distributor’s load contains the poison. Is the state within it’s rights to torture the prankster? No trivial cases.

Torture Scope Imagine the prankster has laced the milk with ricin, further, the prankster lets slip that all the milk in the U.K. is laced. Gravity has ‘increased’ as has scope. Is the state now able to torture the ‘prankster’?

Torture Scope Should scope matter? You are a detective in a town where a child has been kidnapped. You have caught the person responsible, but he is not telling you where the child is hidden. Gravity is high, scope is low. Justification?

Torture Future Again, you are a detective. You discover a terrorist in your unit and discover that plans are in place to carry out an attack that will profoundly affect the citizens of your country. So devastating is this attack that significant pressure will be put onto the government to introduce new laws, and change the existing laws. As a consequence, society is more distrustful, less welcoming to those it does not know.

Torture If we are trying to preserve our society from (e.g.) terrorist attacks, then ‘future’ undermines torture as the very act of torturing someone undermines (alters) the very society we are trying to preserve. Scope also might not be a relevant factor in deciding whether or not to torture someone… Best argument is for gravity. Thoughts?

Torture Gravity raises questions of proportion. Could we confidently draw up a list of ‘torturable offenses’?