Justice and Fairness Promoting Common Good, Essays (university) of Ethics

Download Justice and Fairness Promoting Common Good and more Essays (university) Ethics in PDF only on Docsity! Justice and Fairness Promoting the Common Good Prepare by: Joel Sabal Jr. Divine Grace Bascugin Nicollete Justine Norbe John Neary Matic Cathlyn Joy Reyes Dave Gondrie Brillo Neil James Rotairo Jean Kearny Estolas Niel Christian Garcia Jelyn Mae Vibandor Jhon Paulo Guiruela Rocel Bolante Andrew Casajeros Justice and Fairness Promoting the Common Good Arguments about justice or fairness have a long tradition in Western civilization. In fact, no idea in Western civilization has been more consistently linked to ethics and morality than the idea of justice. From the Republic, written by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, to A Theory of Justice, written by the late Harvard philosopher John Rawls, every major work on ethics has held that justice is part of the central core of morality. Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each person his or her due. Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are often today used interchangeably. There have, however, also been more distinct understandings of the two terms. While justice usually has been used with reference to a standard of rightness, fairness often has been used with regard to an ability to judge without reference to one's feelings or interests; fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to make judgments that are not overly general but that are concrete and specific to a particular case. In any case, a notion of being treated as one deserves is crucial to both justice and fairness. When people differ over what they believe should be given, or when decisions have to be made about how benefits and burdens should be distributed among a group of people, questions of justice or fairness inevitably arise. In fact, most ethicists today hold the view that there would be no point of talking about justice or fairness if it were not for the conflicts of interest that are created when goods and services are scarce and people differ over who should get what. When such conflicts arise in our society, we need principles of justice that we can all accept as reasonable and fair standards for determining what people deserve. But saying that justice is giving each person what he or she deserves does not take us very far. How do we determine what people deserve? What criteria and what principles should we use to determine what is due to this or that person? Principles of Justice The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved." For example, if Jack and Jill both do the same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Jack is paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an injustice—a form of discrimination—because race and sex are not relevant to normal work situations. There are, however, many differences that we deem as justifiable criteria for treating people differently. For example, we think it is fair and just when a parent gives his own children more attention and care in his private affairs than he gives the children of others; we think it is fair when the person who is first in a line at a theater is given first choice of theater tickets; we think it is just when the government gives benefits to the needy that it does not provide to more affluent citizens; we think it is just when some who have done wrong are given punishments that are The Nature of Theory In A Theory of Justice (1971), the American philosopher John Rawls attempted to develop a non-utilitarian justification of a democratic political order characterized by fairness, equality, and individual rights. Reviving the notion of a social contract, which had been dormant since the 18th century, he imagined a hypothetical situation in which a group of rational individuals are rendered ignorant of all social and economic facts about themselves—including facts about their race, sex, religion, education, intelligence, talents or skills, and even their conception of the “good life”—and then asked to decide what general principles should govern the political institutions under which they live. From behind this “veil of ignorance,” Rawls argues, such a group would unanimously reject utilitarian principles—such as “political institutions should aim to maximize the happiness of the greatest number”—because no member of the group could know whether he belonged to a minority whose rights and interests might be neglected under institutions justified on utilitarian grounds. Instead, reason and self-interest would lead the group to adopt principles such as the following: (1) everyone should have a maximum and equal degree of liberty, including all the liberties traditionally associated with democracy; (2) everyone should have an equal opportunity to seek offices and positions that offer greater rewards of wealth, power, status, or other social goods; and (3) the distribution of wealth in society should be such that those who are least well-off are better off than they would be under any other distribution, whether equal or unequal. (Rawls holds that, given certain assumptions about human motivation, some inequality in the distribution of wealth may be necessary to achieve higher levels of productivity. It is therefore possible to imagine unequal distributions of wealth in which those who are least well-off are better off than they would be under an equal distribution.) These principles amount to an egalitarian form of democratic liberalism. Rawls is accordingly regarded as the leading philosophical defender of the modern democratic capitalist welfare state. John Rawls, (born Feb. 21, 1921, Baltimore, Md., U.S.—died Nov. 24, 2002, Lexington, Mass.), American political and ethical philosopher, best known for his defense of egalitarian liberalism in his major work, A Theory of Justice (1971). He is widely considered the most important political philosopher of the 20th century. Rawls was the second of five children of William Lee Rawls and Anna Abell Stump. After attending an Episcopalian preparatory school, Kent School, in Connecticut, he entered Princeton University, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in 1943. He enlisted in the army later that year and served with the infantry in the South Pacific until his discharge in 1945. He returned to Princeton in 1946 and earned a Ph.D. in moral philosophy in 1950. He taught at Princeton (1950–52), Cornell University (1953–59), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1960–62), and finally Harvard University, where he was appointed James Bryant Conant University Professor in 1979 In A Theory of Justice, Rawls defends a conception of “justice as fairness.” He holds that an adequate account of justice cannot be derived from utilitarianism, because that doctrine is consistent with intuitively undesirable forms of government in which the greater happiness of a majority is achieved by neglecting the rights and interests of a minority. Reviving the notion of a social contract, Rawls argues that justice consists of the basic principles of government that free and rational individuals would agree to in a hypothetical situation of perfect equality. In order to ensure that the principles chosen are fair, Rawls imagines a group of individuals who have been made ignorant of the social, economic, and historical circumstances from which they come, as well as their basic values and goals, including their conception of what constitutes a “good life.” Situated behind this “veil of ignorance,” they could not be influenced by self- interested desires to benefit some social groups (i.e., the groups they belong to) at the expense of others. Thus they would not know any facts about their race, sex, age, religion, social or economic class, wealth, income, intelligence, abilities, talents, and so on. In this “original position,” as Rawls characterizes it, any group of individuals would be led by reason and self-interest to agree to the following principles: (1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. (2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. The “basic liberty” mentioned in principle 1 comprises most of the rights and liberties traditionally associated with liberalism and democracy: freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of association, the right to representative government, the right to form and join political parties, the right to personal property, and the rights and liberties necessary to secure the rule of law. Economic rights and liberties, such as freedom of contract or the right to own means of production, are not among the basic liberties as Rawls construes them. Basic liberties cannot be infringed under any circumstances, even if doing so would increase the aggregate welfare, improve economic efficiency, or augment the income of the poor. Clause b of principle 2 provides that everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to compete for desirable public or private offices and positions. This entails that society must provide all citizens with the basic means necessary to participate in such competition, including appropriate education and health care. Clause a of principle 2 is known as the “difference principle”: it requires that any unequal distribution of wealth and income be such that those who are worst off are better off than they would be under any other distribution consistent with principle 1, including an equal distribution. (Rawls holds that some inequality of wealth and income is probably necessary in order to maintain high levels of productivity.) In Rawls’s view, Soviet-style communism is unjust because it is incompatible with most basic liberties and because it does not provide everyone with a fair and equal opportunity to obtain desirable offices and positions. Pure laissez-faire capitalism is also unjust, because it tends to produce an unjust distribution of wealth and income (concentrated in the hands of a few), which in turn effectively deprives some (if not most) citizens of the basic means necessary to compete fairly for desirable offices and positions. A just society, according to Rawls, would be a “property-owning democracy” in which ownership of the means of production is widely distributed and those who are worst off are prosperous enough to be economically independent. Although Rawls generally avoided discussion of specific political arrangements, his work is widely interpreted as providing a philosophical foundation for egalitarian liberalism as imperfectly manifested in the modern capitalist welfare state or in a market-oriented social democracy. In a later work, Political Liberalism (1993), Rawls revised the argument for the two principles of justice by construing the contracting individuals as representatives of conflicting comprehensive worldviews in a pluralistic democracy. Rawls also wrote works on international justice and human rights and on the history of moral and political philosophy. A Theory of Justice is a 1971 work of political philosophy and ethics by John Rawls, in which the author addresses the problem of distributive justice (the socially just distribution of goods in a society). The theory utilises an updated form of Kantian philosophy and a variant form of conventional social contract theory. Rawls's theory of justice is fully a political theory of justice as opposed to other forms of justice discussed in other disciplines and contexts. The resultant theory was challenged and refined several times in the decades following its original publication in 1971. A significant reappraisal was published in the 1985 essay "Justice as Fairness", and a subsequent book under the same title, within which Rawls further developed his two central principles for his discussion of justice. Together, they dictate that society should be structured so that the greatest possible amount of liberty is given to its members, limited only by the notion that the liberty of any one member shall not infringe upon that of any other member. Secondly, inequalities–either social or economic–are only to be allowed if the worst off will be better off than they might be under an equal distribution. Finally, if there is such a beneficial inequality, this inequality should not make it harder for those without resources to occupy positions of power – for instance, public office.[1] First published in 1971, A Theory of Justice was revised in 1975, while translated editions were being released in the 1990s it was further revised in 1999. In 2001, Rawls published a follow-up study titled Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. should pay for medical care for the uninsured, or who should have to live next to a dump or a jail. Why Distributive Justice Matters According to the theory of relative deprivation, a sense of injustice is aroused when individuals come to believe that their outcome is not in balance with the outcomes received by people like them in similar situations. When people have a sense that they are at an unfair disadvantage relative to others, or that they have not received their "fair share," they may wish to challenge the system that has given rise to this state of affairs. This is especially likely to happen if a person or groups' fundamental needs are not being met, or if there are large discrepancies between the "haves" and the "have-nots." This is particularly apparent in both Europe and the Middle East in 2013, but is also going on, to a lesser extent (and much less violently) in the U.S. where the distribution of wealth is getting more and more unequal. (See Rich/Poor Conflicts) While it is clear to most people (at least in the US) that skin color or religion should not be valid criteria of distribution, real-life experience suggests that such factors often turn out to be quite significant. In the United States, as elsewhere, issues of distributive justice are connected to concerns about systemic poverty and racism, and questions about the fairness of affirmative action -- policies that grant preferential treatment to particular racial or gender groups. Societies in which resources are distributed unfairly can become quite prone to social unrest. For example, "since the colonial period, unfair land distribution and the prevailing agricultural economic system have been the prime causes of armed and civil resistance in Guatemala. While national and international elites enjoy largely unrestricted access to communal lands expropriated from the Maya, the majority of Guatemalans live in poverty, on farms smaller than those required to feed the average family. This sort of land distribution violates principles of equality, equity, and need, and therefore generates conflict. Redistribution of benefits can sometimes help to relieve tensions and allow for a more stable society. However, redistribution always has losers, and they often initiate a conflict of their own. This is apparent in the US, where opposition to affirmative action has always been strong. Similar policies preferentially treating Maylays and indigenous people in Malaysia is currently (2013) leading to tension and conflict--though not violence, at least as of yet. Although always challenging, to the extent that re-distribution can be enacted by the government through what is widely perceived to be a legitimate decision making process, success is more likely to be achieved. If the redistribution process is seen as illegitimate, renewed conflict is a more likely outcome. Balancing out gross inequalities of wealth might also be part of compensatory justice after periods of war. During periods of postwar adjustment and peacebuilding efforts, long-term economic policy must aim to achieve equity, or balance in the distribution of income and wealth. Issues of distributive justice are in this way central to any peacebuilding or reconstruction program. Such efforts to ensure a just distribution of benefits following conflict are typically accompanied by democratization efforts to ensure a more balanced distribution of power as well. Egalitarian Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. An alternative view expands on this last-mentioned option: People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. So far as the Western European and Anglo-American philosophical tradition is concerned, one significant source of this thought is the Christian notion that God loves all human souls equally. Egalitarianism is a protean doctrine, because there are several different types of equality, or ways in which people might be treated the same, or might relate as equals, that might be thought desirable. In modern democratic societies, the term “egalitarian” is often used to refer to a position that favors, for any of a wide array of reasons, a greater degree of equality of income and wealth across persons than currently exists. Egalitarianism is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals from birth, usually meaning held equal under the law and in society at large. It is a belief in human equality, especially with respect to social, political and economic rights and privileges, and advocates the removal of inequalities among people and of discrimination (on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc). Political philosophies such as Socialism, Marxism, Communism and Anarchism all support the principles of Egalitarianism to some degree. Some argue that modern representative democracy is a realization of political Egalitarianism, while others believe that, in reality, most political power still resides in the hands of a ruling class, rather than equally in the hands of the people. For example, the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776 includes a kind of moral and legal Egalitarianism in its assertion that "all men are created equal" (and therefore that each person is to be treated equally under the law), but it was not until much later that U.S. society extended these benefits to slaves, women and other groups. The motto of the French Revolution of 1789, "Liberté, égalité, fraternité", was only really institutionalized during the Third Republic at the end of the 19th Century. The term is derived from the French word "égal", meaning "equal" or "level", and was first used in English in the 1880s, although the equivalent term "equalitarian" dates from the late 18th Century. Types of Egalitarianism  Economic Egalitarianism (or Material Egalitarianism) is where the participants of a society are of equal standing and have equal access to all the economic resources in terms of economic power, wealth and contribution. It is a founding principle of various forms of Socialism.  Moral Egalitarianism is the position that equality is central to justice, that all individuals are entitled to equal respect, and that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status.  Legal Egalitarianism the principle under which each individual is subject to the same laws, with no individual or group or class having special legal privileges, and where the testimony of all persons is counted with the same weight.  Political Egalitarianism is where the members of a society are of equal standing in terms of political power or influence. It is a founding principle of most forms of democracy.  Luck Egalitarianism is a view about distributive justice (what is just or right with respect to the allocation of goods in a society) espoused by a variety of left-wing political philosophers, which seeks to distinguish between outcomes that are the result of brute luck (e.g. misfortunes in genetic makeup, or being struck by a bolt of lightning) and those that are the consequence of conscious options (e.g. career choices, or fair gambles).  Gender Egalitarianism (or Zygarchy) is a form of society in which power is equally shared between men and women, or a family structure where power is shared equally by both parents.  Racial Egalitarianism (or Racial Equality) is the absence of racial segregation (the separation of different racial groups in daily life, whether mandated by law or through social norms).  Opportunity Egalitarianism (or Asset-based Egalitarianism) is the idea that equality is possible by a redistribution of resources, usually in the form of a capital grant provided at the age of majority, an idea which has been around since Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809).  Christian Egalitarianism holds that all people are equal before God and in Christ, and specifically teaches gender equality in Christian church leadership and in marriage. Capitalist Someone who hopes to profit by investing money or financing business ventures is a capitalist. A nation's economy is described as capitalist if it's based on private ownership and profit. The word capitalist appeared in 1791, taken from the French word capitaliste. A capitalist is someone who believes in the economic philosophy of Capitalism, a system of privately-owned, for-profit businesses. A capitalist might believe in free enterprise and the individual’s ability to gain wealth through intelligence and hard work. Capitalist can also be used to describe a self- interested, every-man-for-himself approach to the world. Neoclassical and Austrian economic theory lend support to a conception of laissez faire ‐faire capitalism as an ideal scheme of cooperation in which individual decisions are harmonized, and income is distributed according to one's productive contribution. Keynes's critique of this Notice how this contrasts with Egalitarianism. Rather than claiming that there are NO relevant differences that would justify a difference in distribution of burdens and benefits, they claim that there ARE relevant differences (needs and abilities) and to overlook these differences would be unjust (treating unequals and equals) [4] Protestant Work Ethic (Distribution based on Contribution) Note: This is sometime referred to as the 'Work Ethic' or the 'Puritan Work Ethic'. But it is widely held by people of varied or even no particular religious convictions and many Protestants reject it. For a just distribution each member of society should be rewarded in proportion to his or her (socially) productive work. Some theorists argue that the benefits and burdens of society should be distributed on the basis of the contributions that the individual makes to society. The more people contribute through their work, for example, the more they should receive of the benefits of that society. This raises the question: how is “contribution” to be measured? One way would be to reward on the basis of the effort an individual expends in his attempt to contribute to society (whether he is actually successful of not). The idea behind this is that hard work is a good thing (virtuous) and people should engage in hard work and should not avoid it. When they work hard they deserve more and should be rewarded. Another way of rewarding on the basis of contribution is to assess the actual productivity of the individual. The question here is not whether the individual has actually worked hard to further the ends of society, but whether he has in fact contributed to the society. On this view of dis- tributive justice, the just distribution rewards not on the basis of effort, but on the basis of results, the quality of the product of the individual, regardless of the labor that went into the production of that product. (This seems to diverge from the original justification and relies rather on notions of social responsibility and gratitude.) Usually along with the Protestant Work Ethics there is a commitment to the DUTY of charity. If an individual is unable to contribute to society (too young, too old, or infirm, etc.) then society as a duty to look after him. They may differ on the extent of the charity owed such individual (health care, housing, education, art?), but they do believe that a society which ignores this obligation is acting unjustly. It is worth noting that a system of distributive justice which sees the just distribution as the one proportional to individual merit would seem to rest on the presumption of freewill and personal responsibility. Productive people merit more only if one assumes that they are personally responsible for their productivity. Further, unproductive people only merit less if “it is their own fault” that they are unproductive. The Protestant Work Ethics is consistent with this, in that it make exceptions for charity cases. Generally speaking, the more one believes that people are responsible for their degree of success the more sense it makes to say they deserve more. Conversely, the less responsible you think people are for the degree of success or failure, the less you think the deserve more or deserve less proportional to their individual contributions. Libertarianism (Distribution Based on Freedom) (The Theory, not the Political Party) The just distribution is whatever distribution results from free exchange. They take themselves to be heirs to philosopher Immanuel Kant. No particular distribution can be said to be just or unjust apart from the free choices individual makes (Note the anti-consequentialist, intentionalist character to the theory- like Kant.). Any distribution of the benefits and burdens of society is just if it resulted from the free choices of the members of that society. It may be stated (albeit awkwardly) as follows: From each according to what he chooses to do (give), to each according to what he makes for himself (perhaps with the contracted aid of others) and what others choose to do for him and choose to give him or what they have been given (under this maxim) and haven't yet expended or transferred. Any distribution that results from an attempt to impose a certain pattern on society (for instance, imposing equality on everyone or taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots) will therefore be unjust- no matter how noble it may appear since it is coercive. Libertarians take the Kantian notion that coercion is wrong and run with it. They seem committed to the idea that coercion is the ONLY intrinsically wrong action. The only thing that could make a distribution unjust is that it resulted from coercive practices. (And the only thing that could make a distribution just is that it resulted from free exchanges.) Note: the idea of “deserving” has dropped away here. LeBron James doesn’t deserve the money he has. Rather, he is entitled to it only because people have freely given it to him. Libertarians have no “target” distribution in mind (as the previous theories do) and are wary of any such utopian targets. Often the only way to arrive at such targets is through the coercive re- distribution of wealth, unjustly taking the justly acquired goods of one in order to distribute them to some other. This is why they object to taxation for social spending programs (health care, welfare, the NEA, etc.). All taxation is a coercive use of government power. (Notice the I.R.S. is not simply suggesting that you contribute, but threatening with fines and prison). While taxation for the military, police and legal system is a necessary evil to safeguard our freedom, and thus a just activity of government, taxation for social welfare programs has no such justification. When governments do so they exceed their just charter and abuse their power. Closely related to Libertarianism are the Notions of Negative and Positive Rights, and Contractualism. Negative Right: A right, the observance of which requires only that others to not interfere with the holder. A “freedom from.” Consider the constitutional right to property. This does NOT mean that the government/society is obligated to provide you with property; it only means that if you already have property, the government has to see that you are left alone. Similarly with the freedom of religion (Government does see that everyone has one.) and freedom of press (Government does see that every citizen has a newspaper in which to publish his or her views.). Notice I can respect each and every one of your negative rights simply by staying at home and leaving you alone. Positive Rights: A right, the observance of which requires that others provide a good or service for the holder. An “entitlement.” Some claim that we have a right to healthcare and by this they do not merely mean that we have a negative right to healthcare, that we may pursue healthcare free from interference. But rather they mean that each of us is entitled to healthcare (of some minimal standard) and that if society fails to provide any of us with healthcare then the rights of this person have been violated. Contractualism: The ethical position which claims that one has no positive moral obligations to anyone else other than those one freely accepts. (I do not OWE anyone anything.) All morality requires is that I don’t actively harm anyone; I am not morally obligated to help anyone out unless I choose to do so- (e.g. I agree to watch you purse while you go on the rollercoaster.). Whether there are such things as “positive rights” is a matter of debate. The Contractualist seems to believe that they are none. But even among those who reject Contractualism, the lists of alleged positive rights vary. It is worth noting that the more recently drafted “Bills of Rights” and national constitutions are, the more likely they are to contain positive rights. The UN’s Declaration of Human Rights contains many. (See article 24 for instance.) If there ARE positive rights, say to healthcare, than a libertarian might be persuaded that taxation for Medicare, like taxation for the military, is also a necessary evil required to safeguard the rights of the citizens and therefore justified. Justice as Fairness John Rawls’ theory is based on the assumption before we state what principles of distribution are just, we must first devise a fair method for choosing principles. Once a fair method for choosing the principles is devised, the principles we choose using this method should serve as our own principles of distributive justice.