What is a Just Society? What is Justice?. Distributive Justice – essential questions Is it fair that some people work hard but make little money while.

What is a Just Society?What is Justice?

Distributive Justice – essential questions

• Is it fair that some people work hard but make little money while others are born rich?

• Is it fair when people who make important contributions to society gain the same or fewer rewards in life as those who make no contributions at all?

• If some people have disabilities, through no fault of their own, is it fair that they must bear this burden without help from the rest of society?

Distributive Justice

• Key Question: What is the basis for a just distribution of benefits and burdens in a society?

• In society, everyone experiences some benefits and some burdens

• Benefits: consumer goods, access to education, health care, enjoyable work and leisure

• Burdens: unpleasant work, doing without benefits, taking care of dependents

How Should Things be Divided?• Three main ways to divide (based on

distributive justice)1) Simple Equality (Egalitarianism): Dividing benefits and burdens equally amongst everyone2) Equity: this takes account of special needs. For example, using tax payers money to build wheel chair ramps3) Merit (Meritorians): some people deserve more benefits and less burdens.

Egalitarianism• This encompasses both simple equality and

equity• Its argument: people are born into a world not

of their own making– It is a matter of blind luck that some people have

more of the riches or suffer more of the pains– Canada vs. Kenya– Therefore, distributive justice recommends that we

should take active measures to ensure that distributive justice is achieved

Meritorians

• Meritorians argue against the Egalitarians– The argument: some people are born with certain

advantages or disadvantages; however, it is the person’s abilities and work that determine whether he or she earns the right to retain the advantages or to overcome the disadvantages

– Egalitarians agree but argue that whether they are prepared to work hard are also a matter of luck

Equality

• treating people exactly the same• Some philosophers argue that there is a

difference between treating people justly and treating them equally.

• Sometimes it is just to treat people unequally• For example, it is just to provide people who are

differently-abled with wheel chairs and guide dogs and not to provide others, who do not require these services, with the same assistance.

Plato’s Theory on Distributive Justice• Plato designed an ideal society around a theory of justice based on

people’s special talents• Talents are different from person to person and are natural to them• A just society is one in which each office or job is performed by a

person who is especially qualified for it• People’s positions in society are determined in accord with their

special abilities, the rewards of the position are also determined by what is needed to perform that job well

• For example, if Len (from the cake example) was best suited for manual labour, than he should get the biggest piece of cake as he needs the energy to do his physical work

• Plato was also anti-democratic. He believed that there were people who should govern countries (based on their special talents) and make decisions for an entire society. This person would be entitled to decide whether the cake should be offered to the table at all

Libertarianism• is the political philosophy that holds that

individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society

• It advocates for strict limits to government activity and shares the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.

• Cake Example: If grandma put the cake in front of Simone, she might argue that grandma gave it to her and that she owns it. The others could trade something or buy a piece of the cake from her

• The cake was originally owned by grandma as she mixed it with her own labour

Natural Law• There is a higher moral law than the laws of

private property, which require people to use their property to help others

• Natural law theorists do not reject the idea of private property

• insist that people have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate and to put their wealth to good use even if this means violating a right to use their private property any way they please

Should there be Private Property?• Some philosophers argue that individuals are

custodians, not owners, of property– It is their responsibility to distribute property

justly• This egalitarian view point is held by socialists

Is it Natural to Want to Own Things?

• Libertarians and egalitarians have a basic disagreement about whether it is human nature to want private property– Libertarians: think it is natural– Egalitarians: think it is not natural. Living in a society

where private property is considered important is what makes people want it

• Read Philosophy in Every day life p. 213– Is it society’s influence or natural instinct to want to

own things?

Social Contract• Social Contract: the appropriate

relationship between individuals and their government.

• Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm

Locke’s Contract• Locke was a libertarian• Locke defended the a doctrine that

individuals have rights that limit the powers of government

• Locke welcomed the change that the (British) monarch was losing its ability to rule without input

• He argued that the main political power in society should be an elected parliament

• Though, people had rights that neither monarchs or parliaments could violate– Life, liberty and private property

Hobbes’ Contract• people are mainly interested in preserving their own

lives and advancing themselves and people will take whatever means necessary – including killing and threatening others – to do this

• In a world without government who keep the peace through rules, the result would be “war of all against all” and life would be “nasty, brutish, and short.”

• Through self-interest, people (who are rational) must give up all of their powers to a state and make a social contract– Government would then have the ability to make and

enforce rules and social policies

Rawl’s Contract• John Rawls believes that rational

people would want to live under two general rules– First, they would want each person to

have as much personal liberty as is compatible with everyone else having the same liberties

– Second, they would want to ensure that they are not penalized if they find themselves in a disadvantaged position – any unequal treatment of people must work to the advantage of the least advantaged person

Rousseau’s Contract

• Rousseau argued that inequalities are not natural and are avoidable

• He believed that the benefits of the world belong to everyone in it

• “The fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”

• Therefore, benefits and burdens should be equal to us all