Justice as Fairness

Dr. Nirbhay Kr. Mishra

Assistant Professor
Institute of Applied Sciences & Humanities
GLA University, Mathura
4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Three Approaches to Justice
 To ask whether a society is just is to ask how it distributes the things we prize; income and
wealth, duties and rights, powers and opportunities, offices and honors. A just society
distributes these goods in the right way; it gives each person his or her due.

 There are three ways of approaching the distribution of goods: welfare, freedom, and virtue.
Each of these ideals suggests a different way of thinking about justice.

 In this talk, I offer a critical exposition of different views of justice. However, I defend the
Rawlsian egalitarian ideas of distributive justice ,what he calls justice as fairness, via critical
analysis of both the Utilitarianism and Libertarianism.

 The Utilitarian approach of just allocation, according to which justice is maximization of

good or happiness for the greatest number, has been criticized by the both ancient and modern
thinkers of justice.

 Although Rawls finds libertarian and meritocratic principles, which defend the equal liberties,
fair opportunities, and free economy (laissez faire), as an improved version of distributive
justice, He argues that the principles are inadequate to bring the just allocation in a sense to
bring the social justice.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Distributive Justice

 How should income, power , wealth and opportunities be distributed according to what
principles?

 We find four different responses to this question in socio-political-moral philosophy .

 First, Utilitarianism “The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number”.

 Second, Egalitarianism “ Justice as Fairness”.
 Third, Libertarianism “ Freedom to Choose”.
 Fourth, Moral Desert “ Giving People What They Deserve”.

Greatest Goof For Greatest Number ( Utilitarianism)

Common Good ( Egalitarianism)

Individual Freedom ( Libertarianism)

Virtues ( Moral Desert)

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Justice as Fairness ( John Rawls : 1971)
What is fair start ?
Original Position / Veil of Ignorance

Two Principles of Justice : 1) Equality , and 2) Qualified Equality Principle “ The Difference
Principle”.

 The way we agree to think about justice is to ask what principles we would agree to in an
initial situation of equality.

 What principles would be chosen behind veil of ignorance?

 Would the people in original position choose their collective life governed by utilitarianism
( utilitarian principles ) ;the greatest good for the greatest number?

 Rawls rejects the alternative ,and argues that once veil goes up and real life begins we will
each want to be respected with dignity even if we turn out to be a member of minority.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Rejection of Utilitarianism

 We don’t want to be oppressed.

 And so we would agree to reject the Utilitarianism and instead to adopt as our first principle
equal basic liberties : fundamental rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom
of religious life.

 Rawls makes a point that Utilitarianism makes a mistake of forgetting or at least not taking
seriously the distinction between persons.

 We would certainly recognize the difference behind the veil of ignorance.

 We cannot sacrifice one’s liberty and prospects of life for the majority.

 The common good would be preferred over the maximum good.

 We would not trade of our fundamental rights and liberties for any economic advantages.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Qualified Equality Principle : Difference Principle

o Second principle has to do with social and economic inequalities.

o In the veil of ignorance we don’t know about our arbitrary facts; rich and poor , healthy or
unhealthy , minority or majority class.

o So we might at first start would go far equal distribution of income and wealth just to be on
the safe side.

o Rawls argues we could do better ,even if we are unlucky and wind up at the bottom, if we
agree to a qualified principle of equality what Rawls calls the Difference Principle; a
principle that says only those social and economic inequalities will be permitted that work for
the benefit of the “least well off”.

o All inequalities of income and wealth would not be rejected behind the veil of ignorance so
only those social-economic inequalities of income and wealth are accepted behind the veil of
ignorance which pass the test to help those who are at the bottom.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Libertarians Critical Remarks to Rawlsian View
 Thinkers who are against of affirmative action theory criticize the qualified equality principle
or what Rawls calls the Difference Principle.

 Why should not people choose the principles ,in the veil of ignorance, which favors the
people on the top having top qualities and merits?

 Principles should be based on individual liberties and equal opportunities.

 Distribution of wealth income and opportunities should not be based on arbitrary facts from
moral point of view like cast, gender , race and other accidental factors for which people
claim no credit.

 Social-economic institutions should provide fare opportunities ( equal opportunities) to every

one.

 Principles of meritocracy would bring every one a same starting point.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Rawls Response : Argument from Moral Arbitrariness
 Meritocratic principles would certainly eliminate the arbitrary inequalities.

 Libertarians fairly argued that people should be given equal starting line before the race
begins.

 They should be given equal educational opportunities, Head Start programs, education and
job training programs, support for school, and other facilities to eliminate social-economic
inequalities.

 Rawls says it is improved view of justice than feudal-aristocracy system ,that we most these
days reject, in which allocation of life prospects are determined by the accident of birth
whether you are born in a noble family or to the family of a present.

 This historically led the people to argue career should be open to talent, there should be
formal equality of opportunity regardless of the accident of birth every person should be free
to strive and work. And, it is the just system where people are given formal equality of
opportunity to compete and develop.

 Rawls makes a point that libertarian system of formal equality will remove the social-
economic contingencies but even with this formal fair equality who will win the race?

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
Conti…

 The fastest runners blessed with natural athletic skills.

 Rawls argue that the libertarian formal equality still permits the distribution of wealth and
income to be determined by the natural distribution of abilities and talents.

 Is it a fair start ? Where we are still bothered that some are fast runners and some are not.

 Thus, we need to go beyond the meritocratic conception.

 We need not have to have to leveling the equality to go beyond the meritocratic system
instead we need to permit and encourage those who may blessed to exercise their talents but
we need to change the terms on which people are entitled to the fruits of the exercise of those
talents.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
Conti…
 People may be benefited from their good fortune from their luck in a genetic lottery but only
on the terms that work to the advantage of least well off.

 David Beckham can earn 175 mn pound but only under system that taxes away a chunk of
that to help those who lack the football skills that he is blessed with.

 Likewise, Bill gates can make his billions but he cannot think that somehow he morally
deserve those billions.

 Rawls argue “Those who have been favored by nature, whoever they are, may gain from their
good fortune only on the terms that improve the situation of those who have lost out.”

 Rawls in his argument from moral arbitrariness makes a subtle point that in order to avoid the
facts arbitrary to moral point of view it’s not we need to reject feudal-aristocracy for free
market system or a meritocratic system which brings equal starting point.

 But, we have to set a just system where everyone including those at the bottom benefit from
the exercise of the talent held by those who happened to be lucky.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Theories of Distributive Justice Discussed So Far
Historic Progression

Feudal
Libertarian Meritocratic Egalitarian
Aristocracy
• Life •Basic •Fair •Rawls’
Prospects •Liberties, Equality of Difference
confined Free Market Opportunity, Principle
By Birth System •Education, • Social-
Head Start economic
Program inequalities
favoring
people at the
bottom

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Libertarianism: Milton Friedman & Robert Nozick

Basic Objections:

 What about incentive?

 What about efforts?
 What about self-ownership?

 Libertarian laissez faire economist Friedman in his critical remarks to difference principle
writes “ Life is not fair. It is tempting to believe that government can rectify what nature has
spawned.” ( Free to choose : 1980)

 Only way to rectify that is to have a leveling equality of outcome. Every one finishing race at
the same point and that would be disaster.

 Rawls response to this criticism is that “ The natural distribution is neither just not unjust ;
nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply
natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.”

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Self-Ownership : We Own Ourselves
 It might be good thing to provide education and other facilities so that they can have equal
starting point to begin the race.

 However, if you tax people to provide these facilities against their will. It’s kind of coercion.

 It’s form of theft and if you take some of Beckham’s 175 mn to support public school against
his will the sate is really doing no batter than stealing from him.

 Robert Nozick argues that we own ourselves in the ways we are owners of our talents and
endowments. ( Anarchy, State, and Utopia: 1974)

 Otherwise we are just using and coercing people.

 Taxation against will makes profession in some sense forced labor.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Rawls Response to Libertarians

 State ,being paternalistic is owner in us to some extent, confines our self-ownership.

 Rawls argues that may be we do not own ourselves in that thorough going sense, however, it
doesn’t mean that state is owner in me.

 We have rights to equal basic liberties by the first principle behind the veil of ignorance.

 Thus, considering self-ownership in only respect that I own my self in the sense that I have
privileged claim on the benefits that come from the exercise of my talents in the market
economy.

 Rawls rejects this particular view and says that we can defend rights, we can respects
individuals, we can uphold human dignity without espousing the idea of self possession.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Rawls Response to Meritocratic Conception of Moral Desert
 Effort is the basis of moral desert.

 People who work hard to develop their talents deserve the benefits of that come from their
exercise of their talents.

 Rawls responding to this view explains that talents, work ethics even willingness to strive
consciously depend on all sorts of family circumstances and socio-cultural contingencies for
which we can claim no credit.

 Some complex socio- psychological reasons seems associated with striving, achieving and
efforts.

 Thus, it’s not right to believe that efforts are not attached to moral desert.

 Let’s consider an example of engineers one takes one day to resolve a problem by putting his
efforts and another put efforts for three days to resolve the same problem.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Moral Desert Vs Entitlement to Legitimate Expectations
 Is it really efforts that defenders of meritocracy believes is the moral basis of distributive
shares?

 Hence, it’s not just effort but the contribution of our natural talents and abilities attached to
our efforts.

 And the natural talents and abilities are not our doing how we came to in to possession of
those talents in the first place.

 Distributive justice is not about moral desert.

 There is a significant difference between moral desert and legitimate entitlement of

expectations.

 Let’s talk about two different games: 1) a game of pure chance “ Lottery”, and 2) a game of
skill, cricket.

 When you win the lottery you are entitled to your winnings, however, you don’t morally
deserve to win in the first place because it’s just a game of luck.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
Conti…
 A game of skill, imagine RCB winning the IPL trophy when they win they are entitled to the
trophy, but it can be always asked of the game of skill: did they deserve to win?

 It is always possible in principle to distinguish what sum is entitled to under the rules and
whether they deserve to win in the first place.

 Distributive justice is not a matter of moral desert though it’s matter of entitlement of
legitimate expectations.

 Rawls writes “ A just scheme answers to what men are entitled to; it satisfies their legitimate
expectations as founded upon social institutions. But what they are entitled to is not
proportional to or dependent upon their intrinsic worth.”

 The principles of justice that regulate the basic structure don’t mention moral desert, and
there is no tendency for distributive shares to correspond to it.

 Why does Rawls draw this difference and what is morally at stake?

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 The Significance of the Distinction
 Rawls addresses the second contingency, a second source of moral arbitrariness, that goes
beyond the question of whether is to my credit that I have the talents that enable me to get
ahead?

 It has to with the contingency that I live in a society that happens to value my talent.

 For instance, Mahendra singh Dhoni live in an Indian society that highly demands and
appreciates the cricketing skills, while others sports and players are not so demanding and
valued.

 It depends on society that prize our talents. Suppose if Indian society start valuing football
and other sports then would M.S. Dhoni be less talented, having less intrinsic worth, and
morally less deserving?

 What qualities we possess is largely shaped and depend on what society demands.

 It’s not question of moral desert and it’s not our own doing but depend on the unintentional
Social choice ; demand and supply.

 We are entitled to the benefits that the rules of the game promise for the exercise of our
talents but it’s mistake and conceit to suppose that we deserve in the first place that society
that values the quality we happen to have in abundance.
4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Affirmative action and Social Justice
Sheryl Hopwood Vs Texas University (1990)
 Moral desert and distributive justice in connection to opportunities, hiring decisions and
admission standards

Arguments: 1) Corrective – for differences in educational backgrounds

2) Compensatory- for past wrongs

3) Diversity- for educational experience , for society as a whole

 Sheryl Hopwood a white American. She applied to the Texas University law school. She did
not get admission despite the fact that she did academically well and scored more than the
other applicants from ,African American and Mexican American, minority class.

 In the trail , Texas University defended its affirmative action by including the race and
ethnicity factors in admission policy.

 Arguing from the University mission and the purpose for the wider society they maintain that
we need to train lawyers, judges, leaders and public officials who will contribute to civic
strengths of the state of Texas and country as a whole.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Rights Vs Virtue
 Although libertarians and egalitarians disagree over the distribution of justice, they defend the
theory of rights and maintain that justice is not matter of rewarding or honoring virtue or
moral desert.

 They believe attaching merit and virtue to justice is going to lead away from freedom.

 It will take away respect from persons as free beings.

 It is on this point modern socio-political theorists of the theory of rights and justice disagree
with ancient theorist like Aristotle who explicitly ties justice to honoring virtue, merits and
moral desert.

 Why do modern thinkers disagree with Aristotelian view?

 Rights oriented theorists reject Aristotelian view of justice on the ground that it limits
individuals rights and freedom.

 Is the fear of right oriented theorists to Aristotelian view reasonable? It is matter of further
examination.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Aristotelian view of Justice (Politics)
 Aristotelian view of justice is inextricably intertwined with the idea of moral desert and
virtues.

 Justice is the matter of giving people what they deserve.

 It is giving one his/her due.

 It’s matter of figuring out proper fit between persons with their virtues and appropriate social
roles.

 “Justice involves two factors: things and the persons to whom the things are assigned. In
general we say that persons who are equal should have equal things assigned to them.”

 The question arises at this point equals in what respects.

 Aristotle responds it depends on the sorts of things we are distributing.

 Suppose we are distributing flutes what is the relevant merit or basis of desert for flutes: who
should get the best flutes?

 Aristotle says best flutes should go to the best flute players.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Just Discrimination
 Best flute players those who are best in the relevant sense.

 Is it just to discriminate in allocating flutes?

 Aristotle responds that all justice involves discrimination what matters is that discrimination
be according to the relevant excellence , according to virtue appropriate to having flutes.

 But, it is unjust to discriminate on the other grounds say, that best flute should go to the
person who is born in a noble family , or the wealthy person who can afford best flutes, or by
chance or lottery.

 Why best flutes should go to the best flute players?

 It is not that best flute players can use best flutes at best and can produce best music as a
result.

 Best flute players can produce best utility ,and society can enjoy the best music.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 Teleological View of Justice
 Everybody will enjoy listening to music is a welcome side effect but not the reason of just
allocation.

 Aristotle rejects the utilitarian view of just allocation.

 He reasons from the goal ( telos); the very end or purpose of just allocation.

 Justice has got the purpose to allocate resources, honors and positions to those who can offer
best practices in the society.

 It is through which we can serve the purpose to create a good society.

 Everyone has to be fitted in this purposive whole.

 Reasoning from the purpose Aristotle argues that justice is teleological.

 It has got a social purpose to bring good social life for the individuals by honoring their
virtues so that they can deliver to the purpose by offering their best social practices.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 The Right to Rule
 Unlike modern theories of justice, Aristotle argues that the question of justice is not just a
distributive ,mainly limited to distribution of income and wealth, job and opportunities, but
also a honorific one.

 How should political offices and honors be distributed?

 Who should have the right to rule?

 Who should be a citizen ?

 How should political authorities be distributed?

 Aristotle argues that the principles of distributive justice can be derived from a good political
system.

 Purpose of justice is embedded in the purpose of politics.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
 The purpose of Politics
 Politics is about forming good character, it’s about cultivating the virtues of citizens and it’s
about good life. The end of the state and the political community is not mere life, it’s not
economic exchange only, it’s not security only. it’s realizing the good life.

 However, modern theorists of justice , libertarians and egalitarians like Kant and Rawls
contradict these points.

 According to them, the point of politics is not to shape the moral characters of citizens. It’s
not to make us good. It’s to respect our freedom to choose our goods, our values and our ends
consistent with similar liberties for others.

 Aristotle disagrees: Any polis which is truly so called, and is not mere one in name, must
devote itself to the end of encouraging goodness. Otherwise, political association sinks in
mere alliance.”

 Law becomes a covenant, a guarantor of man’s rights against one another, instead of being-
as it should be-a way of life such as will make the members of polis good and just.”

( Politics, Aristotle)

4/6/2019 4:39 AM
Concluding Remarks: Egalitarianism a way to achieve social Justice
 I defend Rawlsian Justice as Fairness view as a right theory of social justice.

 libertarian and Meritocratic views offer a better theory of justice what we can say an
improved version that eliminate the factors which are arbitrary from the moral point of view.

 However, these two views fall short in quest of social justice as they allow inequalities based
on natural talents and abilities. The views do not suffice to offer right principles for just
allocation to ensure the social justice. Rawlsian approach is a right view to social justice as it
defends the basic liberties and the differences which work for the least well-off.

 Rawls rejects the moral desert as basis for just allocation ,and instead defend his just
entitlement what he calls entitlement to legitimate expectations. Modern theorists of social
justice including Rawls refuse Aristotelian view that attaches moral desert with the theory of
justice.

 Rawlsian theory proficiently accommodating the valuable points of libertarian, meritocracy,

and Aristotelian teleological views offer an egalitarian perspective that aims to bring common
good or the justice for all sections of society.

 He defends the basic rights and freedom of individuals and upholds the view that the purpose
of justice is not to shape the moral character of individuals but to set up an egalitarian socio-
economic structure to ensure the social justice.

4/6/2019 4:39 AM