VIDEO
HIGHLIGHT
Log InSign up
Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 08: "WHATS A FAIR START?"
SummaryTranscriptChat

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 08: "WHATS A FAIR START?"

Distributive Justice and John Rawls' Principles

Introduction to Distributive Justice

  • The discussion centers on distributive justice, focusing on how income, wealth, power, and opportunities should be distributed according to specific principles.
  • John Rawls provides a detailed framework for understanding these principles through the concept of a hypothetical social contract.

The Veil of Ignorance

  • Rawls argues that principles of justice are best derived from a hypothetical contract established in an "original position" behind the "veil of ignorance."
  • Behind this veil, individuals do not know their future status (rich or poor), which ensures fairness in decision-making regarding justice.

Rejection of Utilitarianism

  • Individuals behind the veil would reject utilitarianism because it risks oppression; they desire equal basic liberties regardless of their eventual societal position.
  • Utilitarianism is criticized for neglecting individual rights and failing to respect personal dignity.

Principles Chosen Behind the Veil

First Principle: Equal Basic Liberties

  • The first principle agreed upon is equal basic liberties, including freedom of speech, assembly, and religion.
  • This principle safeguards against potential oppression by ensuring fundamental rights are upheld for all individuals.

Second Principle: Difference Principle

  • The second principle addresses social and economic inequalities through what Rawls calls the "difference principle," allowing inequalities only if they benefit the least well-off.
  • Inequalities must work towards improving conditions for those at the bottom rather than simply enriching those at the top.

Practical Implications of Inequality

  • Examples like high salaries in sports or technology are discussed; such inequalities can be justified if they contribute positively to society's least advantaged members.
  • A system that incentivizes certain jobs may ultimately benefit everyone, including those who are less fortunate.

Discussion on Rawls' Claims

Engaging with Critiques

  • Participants question whether policies chosen behind the veil would genuinely prioritize disadvantaged groups over more privileged ones.
  • One participant suggests that merit-based systems might be favored instead; this raises questions about equality versus meritocracy in policy formation.

Merit-Based Arguments

  • A counterargument highlights that institutions like Harvard reward top performers but could lead to inequities based on initial advantages.

Understanding Justice and Inequality

The Impact of Socioeconomic Background on Opportunities

  • The discussion begins with the idea that societal structures should aim to uplift the lowest socioeconomic levels, emphasizing a community that rewards effort rather than innate differences.
  • A participant named Kate expresses skepticism about rewarding efforts when some individuals have inherent advantages, questioning if hard work alone can lead to equal opportunities.
  • Kate suspects that access to top educational institutions is heavily influenced by affluent family backgrounds and various social, cultural, and economic advantages.

Disparities in Educational Access

  • A study reveals that only 3% of students at selective colleges come from the bottom quarter of the income scale, while over 70% hail from affluent families.
  • This statistic highlights significant disparities in educational access based on socioeconomic status.

Rawls' Principles of Justice

  • The conversation shifts to philosopher John Rawls, who presents two arguments for his principles of justice: one based on a hypothetical "veil of ignorance" and another moral argument against arbitrary factors influencing wealth distribution.
  • Rawls critiques feudal aristocracy as unjust because life prospects are determined by birth rather than individual merit or effort.

Equality of Opportunity vs. Meritocracy

  • The objection to feudal systems leads to advocating for formal equality of opportunity where careers should be open based on talent rather than birthright.
  • While this libertarian approach improves upon previous systems, Rawls argues it still fails because it does not account for varying starting points in life.

Moving Towards Fairness in Opportunity

  • Even with formal equality, disparities remain due to natural abilities; thus, merely allowing everyone to compete does not ensure fairness.
  • Rawls suggests moving towards a system of fair equality of opportunity where society actively works to level the playing field through initiatives like equal education opportunities.

Critique of Meritocratic Systems

  • Despite advocating for meritocracy, Rawls believes it doesn't fully address moral arbitrariness since outcomes still depend on natural talents and abilities.

Understanding the Difference Principle

The Concept of Meritocracy and Its Limitations

  • Wall argues that a meritocratic system does not require complete equality; rather, it allows gifted individuals to utilize their talents while ensuring that benefits are distributed in a way that aids the least advantaged.
  • The difference principle posits that those who benefit from their natural advantages (like Michael Jordan or Bill Gates) can do so only if it ultimately improves the situation of those less fortunate.
  • Rawls emphasizes that moral entitlement to wealth is questionable; individuals should not assume they morally deserve their fortunes simply due to talent or luck.

Moral Arbitrariness and Distributive Justice

  • The argument from moral arbitrariness suggests rejecting systems based on arbitrary factors, such as birth circumstances, which affect one's opportunities and rewards.
  • A challenge arises: how persuasive is this argument against meritocracy? Some may find it unconvincing, believing effort should be rewarded regardless of inherent advantages.

Perspectives on Talent and Incentives

  • A participant expresses skepticism about whether talented individuals would continue to work hard if they knew part of their earnings would be redistributed, suggesting this could undermine motivation.
  • Another participant acknowledges the arbitrariness in rewards but believes correcting for it might reduce incentives for high achievers.

Effort vs. Circumstance

  • Discussion shifts to whether effort justifies rewards; one participant argues that societal structures often favor certain individuals over others despite equal processes.
  • The conversation highlights how even perceived effort is influenced by factors like family background, challenging the notion that hard work alone determines success.

Birth Order and Its Impact on Success

  • Rawls' perspective includes questioning why income should depend on morally arbitrary factors like birth order, which shapes work ethic and opportunity.
  • Participants reflect on how many in the room are firstborn children, illustrating how such factors can influence life outcomes without personal agency.

Conclusion: Fairness in Distribution

  • The discussion concludes with an example contrasting salaries between judges and media personalities (e.g., Judge Judy), raising questions about fairness in income distribution.

The Fairness of Distributive Justice

The Concept of Formal Equality

  • Rawls discusses the idea of a free market economy under formal equality, where jobs and careers are accessible to everyone. This is seen as an improvement over aristocratic and caste systems.
  • However, Rawls argues that merely having formal equality does not guarantee fairness; it can favor those born into affluent families with better educational opportunities.

Fair Equality of Opportunity

  • The recognition of unfairness in life chances leads to the embrace of fair equality of opportunity, which aims for a meritocratic system.
  • Even if everyone starts at the same point, disparities may arise based on inherent abilities, leading to questions about justice in distribution.

The Difference Principle

  • Rawls introduces the difference principle, suggesting that inequalities are acceptable only if they benefit the least well-off members of society.
  • He emphasizes that wealth gained from natural talents should be used to improve conditions for those less fortunate.

Examples of Pay Differentials

  • A comparison is made between average school teacher salaries and David Letterman's earnings ($31 million), questioning fairness based on societal structure.
  • The discussion extends to Supreme Court justices versus media personalities like Judge Judy, highlighting income disparities and their implications under Rawls's framework.

Objections to Rawls's Theory

  • Three main objections arise against Rawls's difference principle: concerns about incentives, moral desert from effort, and libertarian views on self-ownership.
  • Critics worry high tax rates might disincentivize talent (e.g., athletes or entertainers), potentially harming overall economic productivity.

Addressing Incentives within Rawls’s Framework

  • Supporters argue that there should be enough difference in pay to motivate individuals while still benefiting the least well-off.
  • Rawls allows for incentives by ensuring that advantages do not solely benefit the naturally gifted but also contribute positively towards aiding those less fortunate.

Moral Desert vs. Self-Owning Rights

Difference Principle and Self-Ownership

Libertarian Objections to Rawls

  • The difference principle treats natural talents as common assets, raising questions about self-ownership. This objection is noted by Milton Friedman, who argues that life is inherently unfair and government attempts to rectify this lead to disastrous outcomes.
  • Friedman suggests that striving for equality of outcome through government intervention is misguided, as it overlooks the natural distribution of talents which Rawls addresses in his work.

Natural Distribution and Justice

  • Rawls asserts that the natural distribution of talents is neither just nor unjust; it simply exists as a fact. What matters is how institutions respond to these facts regarding justice.
  • He counters libertarian views by emphasizing that while life may be unfair, we should focus on maximizing benefits from our circumstances rather than accepting them passively.

Coercion and Taxation

  • A significant libertarian critique posits that taxing individuals to fund public services like schools constitutes coercion or theft, undermining self-ownership principles. For instance, taking taxes from high earners for public education can be seen as unjust coercion.
  • Rawls responds indirectly by suggesting that while we may not fully own ourselves in a strict sense, this does not justify state commandeering of individual lives or talents. Instead, he emphasizes the importance of basic liberties such as freedom of speech and conscience.

Meritocracy and Moral Desert

Effort vs Talent

  • In addressing meritocratic arguments based on effort, Rawls highlights that even hard work depends on various social factors beyond individual control (e.g., family background). Thus, moral desert cannot solely rest on effort alone.
  • He illustrates this with an example comparing two construction workers: one strong and efficient versus another weaker worker who struggles but puts in equal effort; moral desert does not equate with effort when results vary due to inherent abilities.

Contribution vs Moral Desert

  • The discussion shifts towards contribution rather than mere effort being the basis for distributive shares; however, contributions are also tied back to one's natural endowments which are not self-generated. Thus, both meritocratic claims face challenges under scrutiny from Rawls's perspective.

Distinction Between Moral Desert and Entitlements

Entitlements vs. Moral Desert in Justice

Understanding Entitlement and Moral Desert

  • The concept of entitlement is contrasted with a game of skill, exemplified by the Boston Red Sox winning the World Series; they are entitled to the trophy, but questions arise about whether they deserved to win.
  • Rawls argues that distributive justice focuses on entitlements and legitimate expectations rather than moral desert, emphasizing that what individuals are entitled to is determined by social institutions.
  • Justice principles do not correlate with intrinsic worth; entitlements are based on societal rules rather than individual merit or moral desert.

The Role of Contingency in Talents

  • A key moral issue involves effort versus luck; one's talents may be valued differently depending on societal context, raising questions about credit for success.
  • Individuals cannot claim full credit for their talents as their benefits depend on arbitrary factors like market demand and societal values.
  • Even if one possesses talents, their success is contingent upon external factors beyond personal control, such as societal appreciation for those talents.

Implications of Societal Context

  • In different societies (e.g., hunting or warrior societies), the value of one's talents would differ significantly; this raises questions about worthiness across varying contexts.
  • Rawls posits that while individuals might earn less in a different society due to differing values, it does not diminish their inherent worth or deservingness compared to others in more privileged positions.

Distinction Between Moral Desert and Legitimate Expectations

  • The distinction between moral desert and entitlements highlights that while we may be entitled to benefits from our talents' exercise, it is misleading to assume we deserve a society that rewards those specific qualities abundantly.

Opportunities and Honors: A Deeper Inquiry

  • The discussion extends beyond income to opportunities such as college admissions; Rawls questions whether these should be seen as rewards for hard work or entitlements based on legitimate expectations benefiting society's lower tiers.
  • This inquiry into fairness applies not only to high-profile earnings but also to access opportunities at elite educational institutions, setting the stage for future discussions on affirmative action.

Conclusion

Video description

To register for the 2015 course, visit https://www.edx.org/course/justice-harvardx-er22-1x-0. ART ONE: WHATS A FAIR START? Is it just to tax the rich to help the poor? John Rawls says we should answer this question by asking what principles you would choose to govern the distribution of income and wealth if you did not know who you were, whether you grew up in privilege or in poverty. Wouldnt you want an equal distribution of wealth, or one that maximally benefits whomever happens to be the least advantaged? After all, that might be you. Rawls argues that even meritocracy—a distributive system that rewards effort—doesnt go far enough in leveling the playing field because those who are naturally gifted will always get ahead. Furthermore, says Rawls, the naturally gifted cant claim much credit because their success often depends on factors as arbitrary as birth order. Sandel makes Rawlss point when he asks the students who were first born in their family to raise their hands. PART TWO: WHAT DO WE DESERVE? Professor Sandel recaps how income, wealth, and opportunities in life should be distributed, according to the three different theories raised so far in class. He summarizes libertarianism, the meritocratic system, and John Rawlss egalitarian theory. Sandel then launches a discussion of the fairness of pay differentials in modern society. He compares the salary of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OConnor ($200,000) with the salary of televisions Judge Judy ($25 million). Sandel asks, is this fair? According to John Rawls, it is not. Rawls argues that an individuals personal success is often a function of morally arbitrary facts—luck, genes, and family circumstances—for which he or she can claim no credit. Those at the bottom are no less worthy simply because they werent born with the talents a particular society rewards, Rawls argues, and the only just way to deal with societys inequalities is for the naturally advantaged to share their wealth with those less fortunate.