Contemporary Views of Justice and the Social Contract

Contemporary Views of Justice and the Social Contract “What is Fairness or Social Justice in Today’s Society? ”

Three Major Conceptions of Justice In Contemporary Democracy • Libertarian • Egalitarian • Contractarian

Libertarian View of Justice in the Social Contract • Liberty is the ultimate moral ideal. • Individuals have rights to life, liberty, and property that society must recognize. • The purpose of government is to protect these rights of individuals from being violated by others by force or fraud. • Except for this, individuals can pursue their own actions and welfare.

Libertarian. . . • Negative rights are emphasized; the individual has the right to noninterference, the right to be left alone; to pursue the good life as personally conceptualized. • Positive rights are deemphasized. The common good is not a concern, as working for the common good would require society to take one’s resources (in the form of taxes) to do things other than what the individual may want or may benefit him.

Libertarian. . . • The assumption is that leaving everyone alone to pursue personal best interests, protected from being harmed by others, will result in the greatest common good. • Programs of social good/welfare prohibited as unjustified violations of individual rights, requiring that resources be taken from some against there will and be given to others. • An open and free (unregulated) marketplace is the economic system generally supported by libertarian conceptions of justice. • The less government the better.

Egalitarian View of Justice In The Social Contract • Equality is the ultimate moral ideal. • While differences among egalitarians, all maintain the importance of social equality in their conceptions of justice. • Hold that society (government) is responsible for furthering and promoting equality. • Believe it is permissible and necessary to restrict an individual’s liberty in order to promote social equality.

Egalitarian. . . • Egalitarians stress positive rights rather than negative ones. Particularly the right to life’s basic and important things: food, housing, education, health care, and a reasonable standard of living. • Egalitarian criticism of libertarianism is that the right to be left alone (negative right) does not mean anything if one lacks the resources to pursue life while being left alone. • Economic views of egalitarians would call for a significantly regulated market to ensure a measure of equality; with even major businesses owned and operated by government.

Distinguishing Between Equality and Equity • The Greek word from which we derive the word justice is dike (dic’ka). • In Greek it meant “equal. ” • But, equal means “the same as. ” • Aristotle (and Socrates) believed that there were many inequalities that were also just. His view of equity as justice is at its root an argument for inequality, though not injustice. • So, as we have seen, Aristotle argued for a view of justice which advocated equity (proportionality based on relevant factors), not equality.

Emphases • Libertarianism emphasizes justice as equity, with justice being distributed based on merit: one’s effort, skill or contribution. • Egalitarianism emphasizes justice as equality, with justice being distributed based on need. • It is important to note that there are no purely libertarian or purely egalitarian governments. (Socialism is a form of government that is based on egalitarianism. —but no pure socialist governments. )

Declaration of Independence “…all men are created EQUAL and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. ” Thomas Jefferson was a thoughtful student of the Enlightenment in Europe and took his emphasis on equality from the writings of Rousseau and his emphasis on liberty from Locke; along with Hobbes, the three most influential political philosophers writing on the social contract.

Contractarian View of Justice in the Social Contract “How is it possible that there may exist over time a stable and just society of FREE and EQUAL citizens profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines? ” John Rawls A Theory of Justice

Tension. . . • Justice creates the circumstance under which cooperation is both possible and necessary. • It is not possible to have a social contract that promotes cooperation unless there is a system of justice. • Justice presupposes conflicts of interest. If never any conflicts among people we would need no theory of justice, or a “social contract. ”. • The values of liberty and equality often conflict and thus compete with one another. • What happens when your liberty precludes my equality, or vice versa?

John Rawls’ Contractarian Theory of Justice • Blends libertarian and egalitarian views, attempting to balance the ideals of liberty and equality. • It does so by emphasizing, as a moral requirement, that those who have more than enough, help those in need. • Accepts the egalitarian criticism of negative rights, thus wants to advocate for working for the common good. • But also accepts the libertarian view that one’s liberty should not be unduly violated.

Rawls. . . • Rawl’s approach to justice is an attempt to answer his question of how we can have a society of individuals who are both free and equal, as our Declaration of Independence suggests. • In actuality his is an attempt in a theory of justice to preserve as much liberty as possible while creating as much equality as possible. • But, in doing so acknowledging that we are never completely equal, or totally at liberty.

How Does One Establish A Just Society…One That Provides For As Much Equality and Liberty As Possible? • Rawls asks that we imagine a group of free, rational, and impartial people trying to decide what moral (social) rules they would be willing to live by before knowing what position they will occupy in the society that would be created by these rules. • This is Rawl’s famous “veil of ignorance. ” It is a metaphor to suggest viewing a society but not seeing clearly, that is, seeing what our place is in that society.

“Veil of Ignorance” • Behind such a “veil of ignorance, ” individual circumstances are unknown, and so individuals designing the social contract would make decisions about its terms in accordance with only the most general desires for the basic human needs. • They would consider everyone’s needs alike since their individual personal needs would be unknown to them at this time.

“Veil of Ignorance”. . . • In Rawl’s view, rational beings will be somewhat adverse to risk, and each one would want to make certain that, if in the natural lottery, that is, birth into the world, he or she winds up on the bottom of the heap, in terms of merit or worth (skill, effort, or contribution), the bottom is as attractive as possible. • So, JUST social rules are the ones that rational people would adopt behind the “veil of ignorance. ”

Rawls Maintains The Rules Would Accord With Three Principles: 1. Principle of equal liberty: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive system of liberties comparable with a similar system of liberty for all. 2. Principle of fair opportunity: Persons with similar abilities and skills are to have equal access to office and positions of the society. 3. Principle of difference: Social and economic institutions are to arranged so as to to benefit maximally the worst off.

Principles Applied • Thus in this hypothetical just society everyone would have: – equal liberty or freedom. , and – equal opportunity. • But, because skills, effort and contributions will vary, individuals will fare differently socioeconomically. • Therefore, the society would be structured so as to maximally benefit those worst off socio-economically, while preserving as much liberty and opportunity as possible. • Rawls theoretical approach is supported by Peter Singer’s notion of equality, in which he views equality as the “equal consideration of interests. ” This is what Rawl’s approach accomplishes.

Unfortunate, Not Unfair Rawls thus acknowledges that in this hypothetical society, as well as in a real society, inequalities are going to emerge in wealth and social standing. They are inevitable. A true egalitarian society (everyone truly equal in all things) is not possible. But, this will still be a just society as long as the people at the top of the heap are there based on merit (skill, effort or contribution). It may be unfortunate that some are less well off, but it is not unfair.

Unfortunate, Not Unfair • Human sentiment supports this view. We have little difficulty accepting the status of those we believe are where they are due to meritorious effort; but we do have difficulty with those who have done so by not playing by the rules…fairly. • While socio-economic inequalities are not inconsistent with a equitable view of justice, severe inequalities are often the cause of political discord, and potential undermining of societal structure and stability.

Inequalities • In other words, severe inequalities distort the evaluation of contributions by both the advantaged and the disadvantaged, leading to outcomes that are unfair as judged by natural standards of equity. • Aristotle in discussing what form of political life is best recognized this and as a practical matter argued that a “middling possession” of wealth is best. The overly wealthy tend toward arrogance, the overly indigent toward malice; the former will be consumed by contempt and the latter by envy.

Inequalities Rawls’ theory recognizes the destabilizing effect of too much inequality by maximally benefiting the least well off, thus avoiding extremes of socio -economic status.

Libertarian? Egalitarian? Contractarian? • America’s philosophical basis of justice is in social contract theory. • Which theory best represents America as you see it today?

Evaluation of Justice • How is America doing as a “just society? ” • What is our social health? • Are the inequalities in socioeconomic well-being so extreme as to threaten the social contract?

The Index of Social Health, United States, 1970 – 2010 48. 8/100 Lowest in 14 Years 24. 5% Decline Since 1970 Social indicators include: • average earnings • poverty • inequality • child abuse • health care • drug abuse

Social Indicators • Twenty-two percent of America’s children live in poverty; defined as $23, 021 for a family of four. • Five children die each day from abuse and neglect; in 2010 1, 560 children. • U. S. ranks 37 th in the world in overall health outcomes, while ranking number #1 in expenditures. • U. S. ranks 34 th in the world in infant mortality rate. • Of the world’s 30 “developed countries” only the U. S. , Mexico, and Turkey lack universal health care. • U. S. teen pregnancy rate is second only to Russia, and 7 x greater than the Netherlands. • U. S. has the highest number of incarcerated individuals in the world: 7 million; 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the incarcerated. • 700, 00 American’s are homeless.

Index of Social Health and Gross Domestic Product, 1970 -2009

• Ratio of executive pay to worker pay has exploded from 42 to 1 in 1980, to 380 to 1 in 2011. • Average executive pay grew 127 times faster than average worker pay over the past 30 years. • Had worker pay risen as fast an executive pay, the average worker would earn more than $110, 000 a year, compared with the $29, 000 they do earn, and the minimum wage would be $ $22. 08/hour rather than $7. 25/hour. • Average compensation for a chief executive in 2006 was $15 million. • Two-thirds of Americans earn less than $40, 000/year, which is approximately 180% of the poverty level for a family of four.

From New York Times “Gap Between Rich and Poor Found Substantially Wider” • Richest 1% of Americans (2. 7 million), will have as many after tax dollars to spend ($515, 600/family) as bottom 100 million ($620 billion). • This ratio has more than doubled since 1977. • Average income of poorest 20% of Americans is $8, 800, down from $10, 000 in 1977 in constant dollars.

“The income gap in America is eroding the social contract. If the promise of a higher standard of living is limited to a few at the top, the rest of the citizenry, as history shows, is likely to grow disaffected, or worse. ” Lester Thurow MIT economist in “How Much Inequality Can A Democracy Take? ”