Chapter 3 Homework No Doing Would Benefit Theseller But Not

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

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