Contemporary Views of Justice and the Social Contract

1
Contemporary Views of Justice and the Social
Contract

• What is Fairness or Social Justice in Todays
  Society?

2
Three Major Conceptions of Justice In
Contemporary Democracy

• Libertarian
• Egalitarian
• Contractarian

3
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.

4
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 de-emphasized. The common
  good is not a concern, as working for the common
  good would require society to take ones
  resources (in the form of taxes) to do things
  other than what the individual may want or may
  benefit him.

5
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 are 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.

6
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 individuals liberty in order to
  promote social equality.

7
Egalitarian . . .

• Egalitarians stress positive rights rather than
  negative ones. Particularly the right to lifes
  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.

8
Distinguishing Between Equality and Equity

• The Greek word from which we derive the word
  justice is dike (dicka).
• 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.

9
Emphases

• Libertarianism emphasizes justice as equity, with
  justice being distributed based on merit ones
  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.)

10
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 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.

11
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

12
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?

13
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 the libertarian view that
  ones liberty should not be unduly violated.

14
Rawls . . .

• Rawls 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.

15
How Does One Establish A Just SocietyOne 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 Rawls 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.

16
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 everyones needs alike since
  their individual personal needs would be unknown
  to them at this time.

17
Veil of Ignorance . . .

• In Rawls 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.

18
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 opportunityPersons 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.

19
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
  socio-economically.
• 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
  Singers notion of equality, in which he views
  equality as the equal consideration of
  interests. This is what Rawls approach
  accomplishes.

20
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.

21
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 rulesfairly.
• 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.

22
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.

23
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.

24
Libertarian?Egalitarian?Contractarian?

• Americas philosophical basis of justice is in
  social contract theory.
• Which theory best represents America as you see
  it today?

25
Evaluation of Justice

• How is America doing as ajust society?
• What is our social health?
• Are the inequalities in socio-economic well-being
  so extreme as to threaten the social contract?

26
The Index of Social Health, United States,1970
201048.8/100 Lowest in 14 Years24.5 Decline
Since 1970

• Social indicators include
• average earnings
• poverty
• inequality
• child abuse
• health care
• drug abuse

27
Social Indicators

• Twenty-two percent of Americas 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 37th in the world in overall health
  outcomes, while ranking number 1 in
  expenditures.
• U.S. ranks 34th in the world in infant mortality
  rate.
• Of the worlds 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 7x greater than the Netherlands.
• U.S. has the highest number of incarcerated
  individuals in the world 7 million 5 of the
  worlds population and 25 of the incarcerated.
• 700,00 Americans are homeless.

28
Index of Social Health and Gross Domestic
Product, 1970-2009
29
(No Transcript)
30

• 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.

31
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
  (620billion).
• 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.

32

• 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?