Rawls on the Just State

 John Rawls (1921 – 2002)

 A Theory of Justice (1971)
 Rawls and Justice
 Justice as fairness
 A just society is one run on just principles
 A just society would be a fair society

 Fairness involves Distributive Justice

 There is a fair distribution of primary “social goods”
 wealth,
 opportunities,
 liberties and privileges,
 bases of self respect (e.g. equality of political representation)
 Rawls on the Just State
 What is a Fair Society?
 Would a fair society would be one that any
rational, self-interested person would want to join?
 Not quite. They will be biased to their own talents.
 Rawls on the Just State
 The Veil of Ignorance
 Suppose they chose from behind a Veil of Ignorance
where they didn’t know what their talents were or
where they would be placed in society?
 They would choose a society that would be fair to
all because they’d have to live with their choice
 So, a fair society is one that any rational, self-
interested person behind the veil of ignorance would
want to join
 Rawls on the Just State
 The Original Position
 Rawls is a Social Contract Theorist
 In forming a social contract we decide upon the
basic structure of society, and figure out what a
just society would look like
 We do so as self-interested and rational choosers,
from behind the veil of ignorance
 This choice position Rawls calls The Original
Position
 Rawls asks, “What principles of justice
would people chose in The Original
Position (at the founding of society)?”
THE ORIGINAL POSITION:
A hypothetical, not real, moment – but still a doable
thought experiment.
A moment when people know nothing about their
future.
 Class or social status.
 Intelligence or other capabilities.

 Social place in terms of gender, race, etc.

 Wealth.
 Rawls on the Just Society
 The Original Position
 How would we choose?
 We are choosing fundamental social conditions
determining our life prospects
 We get to choose just once

 We would follow a maximin choice principle

 choose the setup in which your worst outcome is better
than your worst outcome in any other setup
 We wouldn’t give up fundamental rights and
liberties
 Rawls and Justice
 We would arrive at these Two Principles of Justice
1. Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate
scheme of basic rights and liberties, compatible with
the same scheme for all
2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two
conditions:
a. they are to be attached to positions and offices open to
all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity;
b. they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged
members of society (The Difference Pinciple)
 Rawls on the Just Government
 Prioritizing the Principles of Justice
 There are really three principles here:
 Principle of Liberty
 Equality of Opportunity

 Difference Principle

 They can conflict. What happens in this case?

 The Principle of Liberty must be satisfied before any
other principle.
 Equality of Opportunity must be satisfied before the
Difference Principle.
 Rawls on the Just State
 The Difference Principle
 If primary social goods were distributed evenly,
we would have a perfectly egalitarian society.
 But there are good reasons for thinking that
everyone would be economically worse off in such
a society.
 One obvious reason is that incentives are needed
for people to work hard and use their talents to
create wealth
 Rawls: the Difference Principle
 The Difference Principle
 Taxation is a means of redistributing wealth for the
benefit of the least well-off
 But, everyone, including the least well-off, would
suffer with excessive taxation
 On the other hand, too little taxation and the least
well-off suffer economically
 Between these extremes there will be an optimum
taxation level, according to the difference principle
• Rawls connects justice with a concept of equality
• But does a state have the right to redistribute our
wealth as it sees fit in order to achieve equality?
• The right to our possessions is another right not
adequately addressed in theories such as Rawls’
• This right to property, known as entitlement,
gives rise to the theory of justice popularly known
as libertarianism
 Nozick and Justice
 Robert Nozick (1938 – 2002)
 Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974)
 Nozick and Locke
 Nozick was greatly influenced by English
philosopher John Locke (1632
( – 1704).

 Nozick drew heavily from Locke to create an

explicitly libertarian theory of property rights
and the minimal state.
 An “entitlement theory” such as that first developed
by John Locke puts the right to private property
first and foremost and couples it with a deep
skepticism as to the wisdom and fairness of
government
 Locke argued that what gives a person the right to a
piece of property is the fact that he has “mixed his
labor with it,” in other words, worked with it and
improved it
For his labour being the unquestionable property
of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to
what that is once joined to, at least where there is
enough, and as good left in common with others
—John Locke
 Locke seems to be reasoning along the following
lines:

1. If one mixes what one owns with something that is

unowned, one thereby comes to own the unowned thing.
2. Each person owns her own labor.
3. If one mixes one’s labor with unowned land, one thereby
comes to own the land.
 Objections
 1. Is premise 1 really true?

 Scope problem.
“The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it
into his head to say this is mine and found people simple
enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society.
What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would
the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the
stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men:
"Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that
the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!”
 
- Rousseau
 Robert Nozick (1938-2002)
 American philosopher who taught at Harvard
University; author of an influential book on
political philosophy, Anarchy, State and Utopia,
as well as Philosophical Explanations
• Robert Nozick argues that any attempt to enforce
the redistribution of wealth according to some
schema or “pattern” necessarily violates the rights
of the individual
 Nozick offers a refined version of Locke’s
entitlement theory
 Nozick argues that enforced redistribution of
wealth according to some mandatory distribution
scheme necessarily violates individual rights.
 “Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor. …
[T]aking the earnings of x hours labor is like … forcing the person to
work x hours for another’s purpose.

 Given this, if it would be illegitimate for a tax system to seize some of

a man’s leisure (through forced labor) for the purpose of serving the
needy, how can it be legitimate for a tax system to seize some of a
man’s goods for that purpose?

 Why should the man who prefers seeing a movie (and who has to earn
money for a ticket) be open to the required call to aid the needy, while
the person who prefers looking at a sunset (and hence need earn no
extra money) is not?”
 Robert Nozick
 If we move from a just state of the world to another state
via voluntary transactions among individuals, then the
new state of the world is just as well.
 It’s the transactions, not the distribution itself, that are at the root
of justice.

Justice in acquisition, transfer, and rectification (more in a few

slides).

 Rawls = The end result of a transfer (or patterns of

transfers) informs us as to its justice.

 Nozick = The procedures or methodologies of a transfer

(or patterns of transfer) inform us as to its justice.
 Example
 According to “Income and Poverty in the United States:
2016.” Current Population Reports P60-259 U.S. Census
Bureau, the ratio of women’s and men’s median annual
earnings was 80.5 percent for full-time, year-round workers in
2016. 
 Is this just or unjust?
NOZICK:
Yes! So long as all parties involved were free (un-
coerced).

RAWLS:
No! No one would choose this distribution scheme
behind the veil of ignorance.
 Nozick’s Entitlement Theory
ET has three main elements:
 Justice in acquisition;
 Justice in transfer.
 Justice in rectification.

Nozick’s account of distributive justice is derived from this

theory,.

“A distribution is just if it arises from another just

distribution by legitimate means” (c2), in other words by
ET.
 Entitlement Theory
 A principle of justice in acquisition - This principle
deals with the initial acquisition of holdings. It is an
account of how people first come to own common
property, what types of things can be held, and so forth.
 A principle of justice in transfer - This principle
explains how one person can acquire holdings from
another, including voluntary exchange and gifts.
 A principle of rectification of injustice - how to deal
with holdings that are unjustly acquired or transferred,
whether and how much victims can be compensated,
how to deal with long past transgressions or injustices
done by a government, and so on.
 Entitlement Theory

 Nozick believes that if the world were wholly just (and

good), only the first two principles would be needed, as
"the following inductive definition would exhaustively
cover the subject of justice in holdings":

1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the

principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding.
2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the
principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled
to the holding, is entitled to the holding.
3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated)
applications of 1 and 2. (Nozick 1974:151)
 What about History?
 One obvious objection to this view points out that a
claim of "entitlement" may have questionable
historical ramifications (who is entitled to North
America?).
 In this context, Nozick appeals to his third element of
ET: Justice in Rectification (497c2).
 Nozick turns this weakness into a strength, noting
that in contrast to utilitarianism, which focuses on the
present, the entitlement theory is historically
sensitive.
 Nozick
 Basic moral rule: don’t violate
rights/entitlements
 A property rights based theory
 A libertarian account of justice
 The Lockean proviso concerning
acquisition: enough and as good left for
others