Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Chapter 6: The case for equality- John Rawls (Sandel 2009) (The principles…
Chapter 6: The case for equality- John Rawls (Sandel 2009)
Most American's never signed a social contract, why are we obligated to obey the law? tacit consent and hypothetical consent
Think about justice is to ask what principles we would agree to in an initial situation of equality?
Choose principles behind a veil of ignorance, if we don't know where we will wind up in society, choose from an initial position of equality, so no one would have a superior gaining position, the principles would be just
Rawls idea of a social contract, a hypothetical agreement in the original position of equality
We wouldn't pick utilitarianism- might become a member of an oppressed minority
Also we wouldn't pick libratarianism or lazier fare, could be Bill gates or a homeless person
Rawls- two principles of justice would emerge: Equal civil liberties for all, secondly social and economic equality - only social and economic inequalities would permitted if it worked to the benefits of the less well off in society
The moral limits of contracts
We assume contracts justify the terms they produce
Actual contracts are self-sufficient moral isntruments
No social contract or constitutional convention is guaranteed to produce fair terms of social cooperation
Can consent create an obligation on its own. Actual contracts carry moral weight in two ideals- autonomy and reciprocity
Consent may not be enough to create a morally binding obligation, in other it may not be neccesary
When consent is not enough, baseball cards and the leaky toilet
The fact of an agreement does not guarantee the fairness of an agreement, consent is not enough to make a binding moral claim
Kind of exploitation, fact the agreement was voluntary by no means ensures it involves the exchange of equal or comparable benefits
Consent is not necessarily a condition of moral obligation
When consent is not essential: Hume's house and the Squugee men
Contractors claim that the work was necessary to be done
Hume didn't like the purely benefit- based theory of obligation. His defence failed and the court ordered him to pay
Can easily slide into high-pressure sales tactics and other abuses . Sqangees washing cars at red lights and asking for money
Benefit or consent? Sam's mobile auto repair
Consent based and benefit-based aspects of obligation are not clearly distinguished
Would i owe him $50 , he would have performed a benefit, because I would have owed him, i agreed to hire him
Wrongly assumes that wherever their is an obligation, there must have been an agreement - some act of consent
Need to assert a more stringent view of consent
Imagining the Perfect Contract
Contracts derive their force from two moral ideals- autonomy and reciprocity
Differences in bargaining power and knowledge are always possible
The fact of an agreement does not guarantee the fairness of the agreement
Actual contracts are not self-sufficient moral instruments
the terms of our civil rights would leave no space for coercion and deception and so would have to be just
The veil of ignorance ensures the equality of power and knowledge that the original position requires. If no one has strengths, the veil of ignorance means no one can take advantage
The principles of justice
What principles would we choose in a position of equality?
We wouldn't choose utilitarianism and agree principles of basic civil liberties for all citizens, including the right to the liberty of conscience and freedom of thought
We would not sacrifice our fundamental rights and liberties for social and economic benefits
To reduce the risk of being in crushing poverty, we might favour equal distribution of income and wealth
Adopt Rawls difference principle: Only social and economic inequalities are permitted that work for the benefit of the least advantaged members of society
Concerned with the basic structure of society, how it allocates rights and duties, income and wealth, power and opportunities
How do we know behind the veil of ignorance that people would risk it all to be at the top? Rawls believes they wouldn't take such chances
The distribution of income and opportunity shouldn't be based on factors arbitrary from a moral point of view
The argument from moral arbitrariness
Feudal aristocracy means everything down to birth
In a market system, opportunities are far from equal. If runners start from different points the race is hardly fair
The distribution of income and wealth from the free market with formal equality of opportunity cannot never be considered just
The meritocratic system still permits the distribution of income and wealth to be determined by the natural distribution of abilities and talents. Distributive shared are decided by the outcome of the natural lottery, this outcome is arbitrary from a moral perspective
An egalitarian nightmare
Rawls alternative: the difference principle corrects the unequal distribution of talents and endowments without handicapping the talented
The talents reaped in the market belong to the community as a whole, should be shared by those who lack similar gifts
Powerful, even inspiring vision of equality
4 rival theories of distributive justice:
1) fuedal/ caste system- fixed hierarchy based on birth
2) Libertarian:free market with formal equality of opportunity
3) Meritocratic: free market with fair equality of opportunity
4) Egalitarian: Rawl's difference principle
Objection 1: incentives
The difference principle permits inequalities for the sake of incentives, provided the incentives are needed to improve the least advantaged
Objection 2: Effort
What about the hard work people engage in with there talents? Don't they deserve the rewards there efforts bring
Even effort may be a product of a favourable upbringing
Effort is influenced by contingencies for which we can claim no credit
Rejecting the moral desert
distributive justice is not about rewarding moral desert
Rawls argues distributive justice is about meeting the legitimate expectations once the rules of the game are in place- we should share each others fate, to avail the accidents of nature and and social circumstance only when it is for the common benefit
Rawls rejects the counsel of compliance Freidman suggests- the way things are does not determine the way things should ought to be