1. College of St. Benedict/St John’s University
Climate, Society, and Technology
A Justice Framework
Joe DesJardins
College of St. Benedict/St John’s University
Minnesota

2. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
"Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.”
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
“Listen—I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.”
Thrasymachus
Justice defined as the ruling norm for social interactions (as truth is the ruling norm for thinking) – how human beings should interact with each other
Thrasyamchus’ skeptical response – there is no such norm that can be rationally defended – thus, it is all power politics. The power line lady. And the view of the vulnerable / disadvantaged / “weaker”

3. DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE:
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE:
HOW SHOULD THE BENEFITS AND BURDENS OF LIVING TOGETHER BE DISTRIBUTED?
“To each their due”
“To each what they deserve”
Many parts of justice. . . But we’ll look at distributive:
Standard definition or understanding of justice is: To each their due: Plato, Aristotle, Cicero

4. “To each what they deserve”
“To each their due”
“To each what they deserve”
but . . .
What is “due”?
What is to be distributed?
According to what standard?
and
2. “to” whom? Who counts in “each”?
But, disagreements over what is due; and the range of people covered. what is the membership of the class “each”

5. What is “Due”? “Content” or “substantive” theories Procedural theories
What is “Due”?
“Content” or “substantive” theories
(classical Greek, Christian, religious theories)
“telos” “Thick” theory of the Good
Procedural theories
(How people get treated, rather than what they get)
PARTICIPATORY JUSTICE
DESERVE RESPECT
Human Dignity tied to nature as free and rational/autonomous
There is a good life for human beings and justice is attained with the attainment of those goods; A “thick” and univocal theory of Good. And to be distributed according to desert/natural abilities.
BUT paternalism and empirically false ? (think Locke and the “age of discovery”)
A shift from WHAT to HOW for distributive questions
Procedural: treating someone with disrespect is to treat them unjustly. HOW rather than WHAT,
Justice consists not in receiving certain goods, but in being treated in certain ways.
Two aspects, sometimes in tension, of that idea are liberty and equality

6. RESPECT/DIGNITY DUE TO HUMANS BY VIRTURE OF THEIR HUMANITY
Libertarian Equally
[______________________________________]
“Thin” Theory of the Good    “thicker” theory of the Good
LIBERTY-BASED / LIBERTARIAN JUSTICE
Left alone: liberty/ freedom from interference
RAWLSIAN JUSTICE-AS-FAIRNESS
Equality of primary Goods and Basic Liberties
SEN/ NUSSBAUM “CAPABILITIES” APPROACH
“Real Freedom” requires equality of capability to
achieve well-being
Primary Goods: welfare, income, liberties, respect
Capabilities: life, bodily health and integrity, affiliation, emotions, senses/imagination, play, relationship w/ other species

7. John Rawls and Capabilities
Certain basic goods (primary / capabilities) as necessary conditions for a good human life, whatever one chooses that to be.
Justice as a modus vivendi for getting along when interests conflict
Rawls “A” Theory of Justice; justice a fairness, as a modus vivendi for getting along when interests conflict
2nd principle: how do we distrbute th benefits and burdens of living together?
A particularly egregious injustice if the least advantaged are made worse off by inequalities – think Thrasymachus

8. What is due to people who do not exist?
To Whom?
Expanding range over time . . .
from Plato/Aristotle  universal rights of “man”
but . . .
“Non-Human living beings”?
“Future Generations” ?
What is due to people who do not exist?
Treat equals (and only equals) equally and UNEQUALS unequally So what counts as an “equal”?
Think Brundtland Commission on “Sustainable development” – meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own”

9. WHAT DO FUTURE PEOPLE DESERVE FROM US?
Challenges:
Disappearing Beneficiaries
Arg’t from Ignorance
Discounting
Equality for the present generation
Bottom line” these challenges can be met, and I think we can talk meaningfully about responsibilities to future generations, about justice to them and injustce to them.

10. Equal / “Real” opportunity to pursue their own ends
EGALITARIAN JUSTICE:
Equal / “Real” opportunity to pursue their own ends
Equal / “Real” opportunity to meet their own needs
“Better off than they would have been”
Specifically? I would offer three:
alternative energy
conserve resources
limit population
Beyond justice? What will they care about/know/experience ?
Preservation: species, wilderness
Equal opportunity might arguably be made by more libertarian theories of justice (think Locke on property and proviso)