Three Modern Approaches

Introduction

Rawls, Nozick, and MacIntyre

Have significant new approaches Which are related to past approaches And show the continuing openness of debate

Is that a good thing? After 2500 years?

Rawls on the Just State

John Rawls (1921 2002)

A Theory of Justice (1971)

Rawls on the Just State

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 didnt 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 theyd have to live with their choice So, a fair society is one that any rational, selfinterested 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 We do so as self-interested and rational choosers, from behind the veil of ignorance This choice position Rawls calls The Original Position

Rawls on the Just State

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 wouldnt give up fundamental rights and liberties

Rawls on the Just State

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 State

Prioritizing the Principles of Justice

There are really three principles here:

Principle of Liberty Equality of Opportunity Difference Principle

They can conflict and are ordered by lexical priority.

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 on the Just State

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

Nozick on the Minimal State

Robert Nozick (1938 2002)

Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974)

Nozick on the Minimal State

Justice as Respect
Recall Kants Principle of Ends Act to treat others as means not just as ends People cant be used as resources A state committed to distributive justice must treat its citizens as means to a distributive end Any such action is unethical Therefore distributive justice cant be an ethical goal

Nozick on the Minimal State

Distributive Justice vs. Entitlements

DJ assumes wealth is just a natural resource Nozick thinks that justice in wealth involves a recursive definition of entitlement:

1. Justice in original acquisition 2. Justice in transaction 3. No wealth is held justly except by combinations of 1 & 2

NB. Redistribution cant produce justice in holdings

Nozick on the Minimal State

Distributive Justice vs. Entitlements

There may be unjust holdings because of past history but that doesnt make the theory of entitlement incorrect

Compare: a state may in fact distribute wealth badly but that doesnt affect the theory of DJ.

There needs to be an entitlement theory of rectification

MacIntyre on the Moral Order

Alasdair Macintyre (1929 )

After Virtue (1984)

MacIntyre on the Moral Order

The current moral disorder

Imagine a catastrophe where most scientific knowledge and the habits of science were lost

MacIntyre on the Moral Order

The current moral disorder

Imagine a catastrophe where most scientific knowledge and the habits of science were lost Then suppose the survivors tried to reconstruct science from the leftover fragments

MacIntyre on the Moral Order

The current moral disorder

Imagine a catastrophe where most scientific knowledge and the habits of science were lost Then suppose the survivors tried to reconstruct science from the leftover fragments Theyd probably produce gibberish that looked like science but wasnt

MacIntyre on the Moral Order

The current moral disorder

MacIntyre thinks theres been a slow catastrophe where most moral knowledge has been lost

MacIntyre on the Moral Order

The current moral disorder

MacIntyre thinks theres been a slow catastrophe where most moral knowledge has been lost We have tried to reconstruct morality from the fragments

MacIntyre on the Moral Order

The current moral disorder

MacIntyre thinks theres been a slow catastrophe where most moral knowledge has been lost We have tried to reconstruct morality from the fragments We have produced gibberish that looks like morals but isnt

MacIntyre on the Moral Order

The current moral disorder

Since moral arguments are gibberish they cant be conclusive in deciding what to do But we must decide what to do so we adopt another method We use emotions, passions, self interest, Since we have incompatible desires our politics has become civil war carried on by other means

MacIntyre on the Moral Order

Bring back virtue!

The Aristotelian version of ethics with an end towards which we can aim makes sense of ought statements.
We ought to do X to achieve this end is understandable We ought to do X just because is not

Absent any conception of what human beings are supposed to become if they realized their telos, there can be no ethical theory, because it simply has no purpose. For people with no destination, a road map has no value