Module 11: Rawls and Justice as Fairness

1. Module 11: Rawls and Justice as Fairness Philosophy 240: Introductory Ethics Online CCBC Author: Daniel G. Jenkins, MA Updated May 2008

2. This module is meant to accompany “The Original Position” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available free on the web here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/ Module Goals: After completing readings, presentations, discussions, and coursework for this module, you will be able to: • Identify and explain core aspects of Rawls’ ethics • Apply Rawls’ ethics in moral decision-making • Analyze the usefulness and critique features of Rawls’ ethics • Synthesize Rawls’ ethics with other theories in the academic study of ethics

3. In module 10 we began with considering the Utilitarian and Kantian notions of justice, and then encountered Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s perspectives on the application of ethics to the role of governments. • In this module we will explore Rawls’ notion that it is the job of government to promote justice as fairness.

4. John Rawls was born in Baltimore, Maryland. • Rawls served in WWII and toured New Guinea, the Philippines, Japan, and witnessed the aftermath of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima • After earning his Ph.D. from Princeton in 1950, Rawls taught at Oxford, Cornell, MIT, and Harvard. • His most influential work was Justice as Fairness.

5. Rawls (1921-2002)

6. The Social Contract • Rawls was influenced by Rousseau, Locke, and Kant. He is a social contractarian. • Rawls believed the ultimate basis for society rests on tacit agreements among its members concerning principles of justice. • Justice is the first virtue of socio-political institutions, and they are proper targets of moral evaluation. • Every individual has an inviolability founded on justice, and not even the welfare of society as a whole should override it. • In this way, Rawls asserts his commitment to Kantian deontology and distances himself from the Utilitarians.

7. Justice • In a just and moral society the liberties of equal citizenship are established, and we have rights which cannot be made subject to political bargaining. • Conflicts of interest arise when we disagree about how goods or benefits should be distributed. • Rawls requires an “ideal observer” to recognize the common point of view so that the competing party’s claims may be fairly adjudicated. • Rawls has conceptualized justice in such a way as to maximize the lot of those who are minimally advantaged.

8. The Ideal Observer • Rawls’ notion of justice maintains that there is a common point of view from which conflicts can be fairly adjudicated. • The ideal observer is the only person (or body, institution, state, etc.) that can adjudicate from the common point of view. • The common point of view allows us to develop civic friendship in the absence of an identity of interests.

9. The Original Position • The original position is a purely hypothetical, theoretical position that helps us articulate principles of justice. • In the original position we are behind a veil of ignorance • It helps us understand we are all rational, free, and equal moral beings, each having similar interests, needs, and capacities.

10. A Thought Experiment • Pretend that we are hanging around somewhere before we are born. • Let’s pretend that there are ten of us, and we are in a room with ten doors, each of which will lead to a life. • Let’s say that three of these doors lead to lives in 20th century North America, and that the other doors lead to lives in war-torn, developing third-world nations, or to Jewish families in Poland in 1925, or to Darfur today, or to a river bank in Bangladesh. • How are we to determine who gets to lead which life?

11. What if we were ignorant of how resources were distributed in the world to which we were about to born into? • Under such circumstances, how might we wish resources to be distributed in such a world? • Take a moment to think about this before advancing.

12. If we were ignorant of how we could advantage ourselves, we would wish for resources to be distributed equally or evenly. • This is the point of the Rawlsian original position – to demonstrate that the only time would consent to inequitable distribution of resources is when we know we would benefit.

13. How should resources and opportunities be distributed? • Principles derived from the original position would be fair from everyone’s perspective • This is what Rawls calls “justice as fairness.” • To the extent a society satisfies the concept of justice as fairness, it conforms to the principles that free and equal individuals would accept for their mutual advantage under circumstances that are fair.

14. Rejecting Utilitarianism • This allows us to see why Rawls requires the rejection of utilitarianism: It is not likely that people who consider themselves equals will agree to a principle which would allow lesser life prospects for some for the sake of a greater sum of advantages enjoyed by others.

15. The Principle of Equal Liberty • Rawls contends that the first principle we would choose from the first position is the principle of equal liberty: “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.”

16. 6 Basic Liberties There are 6 basic liberties of all citizens required by the first principle: • political liberty, the right to vote and run for public office; • freedom of speech and assembly; • freedom of thought and liberty of conscience; • personal freedom; • the right to own property; • freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure.

17. Conflicts of Interest • But what happens when free exercise of our rights does infringe upon the ability of others to exercise their rights? • It seems that even at our most judicious, we are bound to take opportunities that are singular, thus denying other people those same opportunities.

18. The Difference Principle • The difference principle is the second principle arising from the original position, and it contributes to the notion of justice as fairness. • Rawls’ difference principle states: “social and economic inequalities, for example inequalities of wealth and authority, are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society.”

19. Thought Experiment: The Unhappy Right Fielder • Consider that we are on a baseball team, and you are the right fielder; but you want to be pitcher • You become pitcher, but your team starts to lose • Are you better off as a right fielder on a winning team or as a pitcher on a losing team?

20. You are better off as a right fielder on a winning team. • This is what Rawls means when he says that inequalities, if they must arise, must result in compensating benefits for everyone, including those most disadvantaged. • Rights are inviolable; you cannot make someone right fielder simply because it makes the rest of the team better off, but only if that player, denied the right to be pitcher or shortstop or any other position, is himself or herself better off as a consequence.

21. Freedom to Compete for Opportunity • We do not object to others having different positions within a society (president, judge and police officer), each with its own special rights and duties. • But if certain positions are to have benefits above those that others have, those positions must be available to everyone who meets the necessary requirements. • Minimum requirements that would result in the exclusion of some people from competing should be designed with the difference principle in mind – such criteria should benefit everyone, including the person thus denied.

22. Thought Experiment: The Airline • Let’s pretend we are starting an airline, and we want to exclude certain people from being pilots on our airline. Who do want to exclude?

23. We probably want to exclude narcoleptics, epileptics, people who don’t know how to fly planes, drug addicts, alcoholics, terrorists, and a host of others. • They are better off in not being pilots. • We could not deny the ability of a person to be a pilot on our airline merely on the basis of their race, sex, or religious or political affiliation; they are not demonstrably better off in not being pilots. • Rawls is cited in the Affirmative Action law.

24. The Maximin Solution • We should use the two Rawlsian principles of justice as fairness in ranking alternatives by their worst possible outcome, and adopting the alternative the worst outcome of which is superior that the worst outcomes of the others.

25. Criticism • The maximin solution seems to be Utilitarian and suffers from the same problems as consequentialism. • Not every inequality resulting from our free exercise of liberty can be rendered such that those made unequal are better off as a consequence. • Nozick argues from a Kantian perspective that any agreement between rational consenting adults is a moral agreement, even if inequalities result.

26. Summary • Rawls maintains that it is the purpose of the social contract to ensure justice, and he conceptualizes justice as fairness. Rawls’ theory is deontological. Rawls asserts that we can construct principles to ensure fairness by articulating the terms of the social contract from the original position, in which we are behind a veil of ignorance. Rawls believes that we would construct two principles from the original position: the principle of equal liberty, and the difference principle. Rawls is criticized by Robert Nozick, who asserts that any agreement between free, consenting adults is a fair agreement, even if such an agreement results in gross inequalities.

27. Congratulations! You’ve just completed the presentation for Module 11. Once you have also completed the assigned reading from the textbook, please proceed to the “Assignments” and “Discussion” tabs in WebCT to complete relevant coursework for this module. If you have any questions please contact me.