Critical Thinking About Moral ProblemsDr. Marx

His opening question: How do we determine the most fundamental principles of justice upon which to organize society?

The basic answer: By envisioning what reasonable people would agree to if they had to sit down and hammer out an agreement. He calls this hypothetical situation the “Original Position”

The problem: People can be self-interested, and might tend to favor their own family, friends, economic class, etc.

The solution: Envision what reasonable people would agree to if they had to abstract away from their own personal situations.

The Device: The Veil of Ignorance Imagine what principles they would apply for one and all if they did not know

their potential or actual▪ natural abilities▪ education and skills▪ economic position▪ Race, gender, sexuality, etc.▪ etc

First Principle: Liberty

Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

Second Principle: Wealth (The “Difference Principle”)

Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantagedb) attached to offices and positions open to all under

conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

This is usually interpreted to mean that the most just distribution of resources is the one where the “worst-off” group is better off than in any alternative scenario.

Consider the (extremely oversimplified) situation where a society has two members, A and B. Suppose there are three options for distributing units of wealth.Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

A 40 10 2o

B 5 10 15

A utilitarian might prefer option 1, because is maximizes the combined holdings of A and B.

A strict egalitarian would most likely prefer B, because both A and B get the same amount.

Rawls would prefer option 3, because that’s where the least well-off party, B, is best off.

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

A 40 10 2o

B 5 10 15

Redistribution of wealth might be warranted as a matter of justice.

Equality of opportunity may be insufficient to achieve economic justice – such inequality may lead to wildly different outcomes for parties with the same opportunities.

There are limits to the pursuit of economic equality – we might get to the point where further redistribution will make all parties worse off.

Distributive Justice is “historical”, not a matter of “end results.”

According to Nozick, justice in holdings is defined by three simple principles.

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.