Justice
Robert NOZICK:
Anarchy, State and Utopia
Philosophical Explanations
The Examined Life
Distributive Justice:
Justice which concerns itself with distribution of goods
JOHN RAWLS:
A theory of Justice
considered a social contrast theory
the significance of justice
provide a way of assigning rights and duties
define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens
justice is the first virtue of social institution
Principle of justice
first: each person equal rights equal basic liberties compatible with similar scheme of liberties for others
second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that everyone's advantage and open to all
general principle: all social values(liberty opportunity wealth etc) are to be distributed equally unless unequal distribution is to everyone's advantage
justice as fairness
thought experiment: original position
veil of ignorance
state of nature
state of nature focuses upon a non state situation in which people generally satisfy moral constraints and generally act as they ought
this state of nature situation is the best anarchic situation. Hence investigating its nature and defects is of crucial important to deciding whether there should be a state rather than anarchy.
State of Nature
VS
natural rights
a necessary condition for the existence of a state is that it announce that, to the best of its ability, it will punish everyone whom it discovers to have used force without its express permission
compensation principle
issues:
-possible injustice when a wrongdoer compensates as much as the harmed one requires, but benefits more
-when compensating, fear is created, but not compensated
-harms is subjective
-It is not right for the state to compensate impaired ones for risky actions they could perform
Entitlement Theory
definition of state: a type of organization being in power to hold its members in a stte of sub-ordinance by the usage of physical force (in a legitimate way)
A principle of justice in transfer
A principle of rectification of injustice
A principle of justice in acquisition
No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of (1) and (2).
Wilt Chamberlain Argument
Suppose there is an equal distribution of wealth D1 as Rawls wishes.
Wilt Chamberlain is a popular basketball player whose fans will pay 25 cents more of their own free wish.
If he has a million fans, he will earn $250,000.
Now, there is an unequal distribution of wealth D2.
This distribution of wealth still is just, because it was of their own free will that the fans paid. The state cannot interfere in creating this just distribution. Higher taxation of Chamberlain will inadvertetly convert D2 into D1, which would be unjust.
The Difference Principle
Original Position
Libertarianism(Nozick) vs Liberalism
Need-Based Justice VS Merit-based Justice