Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
CHAPTER 3
Justice and Economic Distribution
Learning Objectives
After completing this chapter students should be able to:
Understand justice as a specific subclass of morality.
Be more aware of issues related to economic distribution and the relationship of economic
distribution to status and power in the US.
Glossary
1. coercion: the use of force or violence intended to persuade people to behave in a certain way.
2. difference principle: A principle that states that inequalities are just only when they benefit the
least advantaged people. For example, we could share ownership of everything to make sure that
the system is fair. This would be just, according to the difference principle. However, capitalism
leads to an unequal distributions of wealth and we might expect that it gives us an incentive to be
productive, which might benefit everyone in society including the least advantaged. (Productivity
might be rewarded in capitalism to incentivize hard work.)
3. free market: A “laissez-faire” or “hands off” approach to economics. A free place to do business
that has no interference from the government other than to enforce contracts, protect property, and
protect people from coercion.
4. libertarianism: The theory of justice that states that we should have a free market (or something
very close to a free market). Nozick's libertarianism states that property rights and the right to
noninjury are the two most important moral principles, which leads him to endorse a free market
and minimum government interference (with no redistribution of wealth).
3-1
Chapter Summary Points
1. Justice is one important aspect of morality. Talk of justice and injustice generally involves
appeals to the related notions of fairness, equality, desert, and rights. Economic or distributive
justice concerns the principles appropriate for assessing society’s distribution of social benefits
and burdens, particularly wealth, income, status, and power.
2. Economic distribution might be based on pure equality, need, effort, social contribution, or merit.
Each of these principles is plausible in some circumstances but not in others. In some situations,
the principles pull us in different directions. Dissatisfied with a pluralistic approach, some moral
philosophers have sought to develop more general theories of justice.
6. The libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick defends the entitlement theory. His theory holds that
the distribution of goods, money, and property is just if people are entitled to what they have—
that is, if they have acquired their possessions without violating the rights of anyone else.
7. In the Wilt Chamberlain example, Nozick argues that theories of economic justice not in accord
with his theory inevitably fail to respect people’s liberty because people wouldn't be able to
voluntarily transfer legitimately attained wealth as they wish.
8. Libertarians generally operate with a distinctive concept of liberty, defend free exchange and
laissez-faire markets without regard to results, put a priority on freedom over all other values,
and see property rights as existing prior to any social arrangements. Critics contest each of these
features of libertarianism.
3-2
Teaching Suggestions
Chapter 3 of Shaw and Barry mostly concerns three different theories of justice: the utilitarian theory, the
libertarian theory (sometimes known as the entitlement theory), and Rawls’s theory of justice. However,
before examining the three theories, it is useful to discuss the concept of justice (and how claims of
justice differ from other moral claims) and why it is important. One can also discuss with students
whether it is important to have a theory of economic justice in the first place (see Shaw and Barry’s
discussion of Walzer and of rival principles of justice).
The concept of justice is fundamental to any discussion of how society ought to be organized, and
questions of justice inevitably come up when one considers (as the introduction to Chapter 3 does) the
unequal distribution of income and wealth in the United States (and other societies). Can such disparities
be justified? In this context, you can ask students two sets of questions:
a. Can you give examples of just societies? Can you give examples of unjust societies? Why are
they unjust? What criteria do you use in determining that a society is just or unjust?
Utilitarian theory of justice: The discussion of the utilitarian concept of justice can be connected to the
discussion of utilitarianism in chapter 2 because utilitarians like Mill understand justice in terms of their
overall theory. One point to underscore is that utilitarians favor that economic system or that set of
socioeconomic rules and institutions, the adoption of which by a particular society would maximize the
overall, long-term happiness of its members. But utilitarianism itself doesn’t tell us what that economic
system is.
Applying utilitarianism to matters of justice can be illustrated in the following ways:
a. Is it unjust to sell broken TV sets without saying they are broken? No. Doing so would benefit the
seller, but not the buyers. They are likely to be deceived and lose money as a result. The benefits of the
few don't justify even greater harm done to others. There might have been a time when “buyer beware”
was the best policy in general, but now assessing the quality of products requires expertise that buyers
can't be reasonably required to have.
3-3
damages if they get sick from the pollution. The benefits of the few don't outweigh greater costs others
are likely to suffer. The government might need to limit the amount companies are allowed to pollute to
keep similar situations from occurring.
c. Is redistribution of wealth just? Yes, some redistribution of wealth is likely to be just.
Redistribution of wealth commonly occurs when governments tax some people to give benefits to others.
Benefits include service from fire departments, police departments, libraries, welfare, and public
Libertarian theory of justice: Utilitarianism can be usefully contrasted with libertarianism. For the
libertarian it is not social utility that matters; rather, it is liberty and entitlement. Whereas the scope of the
utilitarian theory is society as a whole, for the libertarian it is the individual. Whether the libertarian
theory would lead, in the long run, to a society where everyone would be better off than they would be if
they adopted a utilitarian theory, is an interesting question you can ask your students. It also anticipates
chapter 4’s discussion of Adam Smith’s economic theory.
Applying libertarianism to matters of justice can be illustrated in the following ways:
a. Is it unjust to sell broken TV sets without saying they are broken? No because selling the TV set
usually implicitly implies that a functional TV is for sale that will do what TV sets are supposed to do. To
sell a TV set that doesn't work ordinarily breaks an implied contract between buyer and seller.
Rawls's theory of justice: You can then talk about John Rawls’ theory of justice. Rawls’s theory, unlike
the utilitarian or libertarian theories of justice, lies in the social-contract tradition, which raises the
question of what sorts of restrictions have to be put on the creation of the social contract in order to make
the contract a just one. Here you can discuss Rawls’s concepts of the original position, the veil of
ignorance, the maximin principle and the difference principle. It is important to remind students that
3-4
b. Is it just for the government to stop businesses from polluting? Sometimes yes because pollution
violates our right to noninjury when it is likely to harm people.
c. Is redistribution of wealth just? Yes. The only reason not to redistribute wealth is when it would
benefit the least well off people to do so. Perhaps letting people make profit will encourage them to be
productive hard workers. It is likely that at least some redistribution of wealth is necessary because the
least well off group of people often fail to meet their own basic needs and redistribution can help them
meet their needs.
Finally, Shaw and Barry don't discuss objections to Rawls's theory of justice. Two objections are the
following:
One, Rawls thinks the people in the original position will be maximally risk-averse and adopt the
maximin principle as a result (and then accept the difference principle). However, it's not obvious that
people in the original position really will be so risk-averse or that finding the best principles of justice
Questions for Discussion
Introduction
This chapter focuses on the subject of economic justice, which concerns the constellation of moral issues
raised by a society’s distribution of wealth, income, status, and power. Ethical questions arise daily about
these matters. Is it just, for example, that CEOs pull in astronomical salaries and help themselves to
enormous benefits when this reduces the profits of stockholders, who own the company? Or, to take
Nozick’s Wilt Chamberlin Example
Suppose, Nozick says, that things are distributed according to your favorite non-entitlement theory,
whatever it is. He calls this distribution D1. Now imagine that Wilt Chamberlain signs a contract with a
team that guarantees him $5 from the price of each ticket. Whenever people buy a ticket to a game, they
Applying Theories of Justice
What answer would each theory of justice give to the following questions:
1. Why is theft unjust?
2. Why is it unjust to allow people to hire assassins?
3-5
Objections
Do we have any reason to prefer one theory of justice over the rest? What are the best objections to each
theory of justice, and how could an advocate of the theory respond to the objection?
Additional Resources for Exploring Chapter Content
Further Reading
Robert Nozick texts (see footnotes)
Internet Resources
Economics and Justice
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economic-justice/
The United Nation’s Global Policy Forum
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/index.htm
Other Resources
3-6
