Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare: Introduction Nanoethics Lecture IV Roderick T. Long Auburn Dept. of Philosophy.

Application to Questions of Justice and Social Welfare:

IntroductionNanoethics Lecture IV

Roderick T. Long

Auburn Dept. of Philosophy

Distributive JusticeHow should the benefits of, and/or

the control over, nanotechnology be distributed?

Moral issue: principles

Practical issue: implementation

John Rawls (1921-2002)Most influential theory

of distributive justice in recent decades:

A Theory of Justice (1971)

Political Liberalism (1993)

Justice As Fairness (2001)

John Rawls (1921-2002) A version of contractarianism

(standard of rightness is what rational people do, or under appropriate conditions would, agree to) but influenced by Kant (principles must be universalizable and treat people as ends, not mere means)

Rawls’ Veil of IgnoranceConsiderations that block consensus

on principles of justice are also unfair to rely on in choosing such principles: how they impact

- one’s interest group

- one’s conception of the good

Rawls’ Veil of IgnoranceChoose principles of

justice as though you don’t know your interest group (race, gender, income, age, health, etc.) and conception of the good (religious, moral, and lifestyle preferences)

Rawls’ Veil of IgnoranceMaximin: choose the option whose worst

possible outcome is preferable to the worst possible outcome of any rival option.

Not a general principle of choice, but a cautious principle for life-affecting decisions.

(Does this favor risk-averse conceptions of the good?)

Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance

Choose the pie whose smallest piece is bigger than the smallest piece of any rival pie

Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance

Egalitarian Rawlsian Utilitarian choice choice choice

Rawls’ Veil of IgnoranceDifferent conceptions of the common

good:

Utilitarian: aggregate advantage (allows sacrifice of few to many)

Rawlsian: mutual advantage (no sacrifice)

Rawls’ Veil of IgnoranceThe size of a pie of material wealth

(and thus the size of its smallest piece) can be affected by how the pieces are distributed (e.g., incentives)

The size of a pie of liberty cannot be.Hence: different principles for liberty

and for wealth

Rawls’ First Principle of Justice

Maximum liberty for each, so far as is consistent with equal liberty for all

Rawls’ Second Principle of Justice

Socioeconomic inequalities permissible only if:

a) open to all

b) beneficial to the least advantaged

Question of ImplementationWhich politico-

economic system in fact best satisfies these principles?

Capitalism?Socialism?something

else?

Question of ImplementationRawls: largely a

question for social scientists, not moral philosophers

Ethics sets the standards

Economics figures out how to meet them

Some Critics of Rawls

Robert Nozick Michael Sandel Susan Okin

Criticisms of Rawls Why does hypothetical consent

matter?

Criticisms of Rawls Why does hypothetical consent

matter? Are omitted considerations crucial to

our identity (Sandel) and/or to our rights (Nozick)?

Criticisms of Rawls Why does hypothetical consent

matter? Are omitted considerations crucial to

our identity (Sandel) and/or to our rights (Nozick)?

Does the enforcement of the 2nd principle violate the liberty protected by the 1st?

A Feminist Criticism Insofar as Rawls is concerned with

the distribution of benefits and burdens within society rather than within the family, doesn’t his approach fail to address:

a) women’s disproportionate burden of labor within the household

b) the family’s role as the context in which expectations of justice are learned?

An Anarchist CriticismDoesn’t the implementation of

Rawls’ principles presuppose without argument the legitimacy of the State?

Why would people behind the veil of ignorance agree to give this one institution powers denied to all others?

More Criticisms of Rawls Is the 1st principle too

skeptical/relativist about the good?

More Criticisms of Rawls Is the 1st principle too

skeptical/relativist about the good? Does the 2nd principle require too

little equality?

More Criticisms of Rawls Is the 1st principle too

skeptical/relativist about the good? Does the 2nd principle require too

little equality? Does the 2nd principle require too

much equality?

More Criticisms of Rawls Is the 1st principle too

skeptical/relativist about the good? Does the 2nd principle require too

little equality? Does the 2nd principle require too

much equality? Does the 2nd principle treat persons

as mere means?

Some of Rawls’ Replies Given human fallibility, unfair to

insist on any conception of the good one wouldn’t agree to behind the Veil of Ignorance.

Some of Rawls’ Replies Given human fallibility, unfair to

insist on any conception of the good one wouldn’t agree to behind the Veil of Ignorance.

Given dependence of assets (natural or external) on luck, unfair to insist on pre-Veil rights to these

Possible Counter-repliesWhy does human fallibility impact

conceptions of the good but not conceptions of justice?

Possible Counter-repliesWhy does human fallibility impact

conceptions of the good but not conceptions of justice?

Why do considerations of luck affect one’s assets but not one’s human status?

Rawls vs. CriticsAnd the debate

continues ….