This content explores John Rawls's theory of distributive justice, proposing that principles of justice should be derived from a hypothetical contract made behind a "veil of ignorance," ensuring fairness by disregarding individual circumstances.
Mind Map
Clic para expandir
Haz clic para explorar el mapa mental interactivo completo
Today we
turn to the question of distributive
justice. How should income and wealth
and power and opportunities be
distributed according to what principles?
principles?
John RWS offers a detailed answer to
that question and we're going to examine
and assess his answer to that question
today. We put ourselves in a position to
do so last
thinks that principles of
justice are best derived from a
hypothetical contract.
And what matters is that the
hypothetical contract be carried out in
an original position of
equality behind what RS calls the veil of
of
clear. All right. Then let's turn to the
ignorance. First he considers some of
the major
alternatives. What about
utilitarianism? Would the people in the original
original
position choose to govern their
collective lives
utilitarian principles, the greatest
good for the greatest number?
number?
No, they wouldn't. Walt says, and the reason
reason
is that behind the veil of ignorance, everyone
everyone
knows that once the veil goes up and
We will each want to be
dignity even if we turn out to be a
member of a
oppressed. And so we would
agree to reject
utilitarianism and instead to adopt as
our first principle equal basic
liberties fundamental rights to freedom
of speech, freedom of assembly,
religious liberty, freedom of
conscience, and the like.
We wouldn't want to take the
chance that we would wind up as members
minority with the majority tyrannizing over
over
us. And so R says utilitarianism would be
rejected. Utilitarianism makes the
mistake. RS
writes of forgetting or at least not
taking seriously the distinction between
persons and in the original position
behind the veil of ignorance we would
recognize that and reject
utilitarianism. We wouldn't trade off
our fundamental rights and liberties for
any economic
Second principle has to do with social
and economic inequalities. What would we agree
agree
to? Remember, we don't know whether
we're going to wind up being rich or
poor, healthy or
unhealthy. We don't know what kind of
family we're going to come
from, whether we're going to inherit
millions, or whether we will come from
an impoverished family.
So we might at first
thought say, well, let's
let's
require an equal distribution of income and
wealth just to be on the safe
side. But then we would
realize that we could do
better than that, even if we're unlucky
and wind up at the bottom.
We could do better if we agree to a
qualified principle of
equality. RS calls it the difference
principle. A principle that says only
those social and
economic inequalities will be permitted
that work to the benefit of the least
welloff. So we wouldn't reject all
inequality of income and wealth. We
would allow some. But the test would
be, do they work to the benefit of
everyone, including those or as he
specifies the
bottom. Only those inequalities would be
accepted behind the veil of ignorance.
And so RS argues, only those
inequalities that work to the benefit of
We talked about the
examples of Michael Jordan making $31
million a year, of Bill Gates having a
billions, would those inequalities be
permitted under the difference
principle? Only if they were part of a
system, those wage
differentials that actually worked to
the advantage of the least welloff.
Well, what would that system
be? Maybe it turns out that as a
practical matter, you have to provide
incentives to attract the right people
to certain
jobs. And when you do, having those
people in those
jobs will actually help those at the
bottom. Strictly speaking, RS's argument
for the difference principle is that it
would be chosen behind the veil of
ignorance. Let me hear what you think
about Ross's claim that these two
principles would be
chosen behind the veil of
ignorance. Is there anyone who
disagrees that they would be
chosen? All right, let's start up in the
balcony if that's all right. Go ahead.
Okay. Your argument depends upon us
believing that we would argue and set
policy or justice from a bottom for the
disadvantaged. And I just don't see from
a proof standpoint where where we've
proven that. Why not the top? Right. And
what's your name? Mike. Mike. All right. Good
Good
question. Put yourself behind the veil
of ignorance. Enter into the thought
experiment. What principles would you
choose? How would you think it through?
Well, I would say things like even
Harvard's existence is an example of
preaching toward the top because Harvard
takes the top academics and I didn't
know when I was born how smart I would
be, but I worked my life to get to a
place of this caliber. Now, if you'd
said Harvard's going to randomly take
1,600 people of absolutely no
qualification, we'd all be saying, well,
there's not much not much to work for.
And so, what principle would you choose
in that situation? And I would say uh a
merit-based one where one where I don't
necessarily know what I have but I'd
rather have a system that rewards me
based on my efforts.
So you Mike behind the veil of ignorance
would choose a merit-based system where
people are rewarded according to their
efforts. All right, fair enough. What
would you say? Go ahead. My question is
if the merit-based argument is based on
um when everyone is at a level of equality
equality
where from that position you be you're
rewarded to where you get or is it
regardless of of what advantages you may
have when you began your education to
get where you are here? I I mean I think
what what the question you're asking is
saying you know if we want to look at
whatever utilitarianism policy it is do
we want to maximize world wealth and I
think a system that rewards merit is the
one that we've pretty much all
established is what is best for for all
of us despite the fact that some of us
may be in the second percentile and some
may be in the 98th percentile and the
end of the day it lifts that lowest that
lowest base level a a community that
rewards effort as opposed to innate
differences but I don't understand how
how you're rewarding
someone's efforts who clearly has had
not you but maybe myself advantages
throughout to get where I am here. I
mean, I can't say that that somebody
else who maybe worked as hard as I did
would have had the same opportunity to
come to a school like this. All right,
let's let's look at that point. What's
your name? Kate. Kate, you suspect that
the ability to get into top
schools may largely
depend on coming
from an affluent family, having a
favorable back family background,
social, cultural, economic advantages
and so on. I mean economic but yes,
social, cultural, all of those
advantages for sure.
Someone did a
study of the 146 selective colleges and
universities in the United States and
they looked at the
students in those colleges and
universities to try to find out what
their background was, their economic
background. What percentage do you think
come from the bottom
quarter of the income
scale? You know what the figure is?
Only 3% of students at the most
selective colleges and universities come
from poor backgrounds. Over
70% come from affluent
families. Let's go one step further then
RS actually has two arguments, not
one in favor of his principles of
justice and in particular of the
difference principle. One argument is
the official argument what would be
chosen behind the veil of ignorance.
Some people challenged that argument
saying maybe
people would want to take their
chances. Maybe people would be gamblers
behind the veil of ignorance hoping that
they would wind up on top. That's one
challenge that has been put to RS. But
backing up the argument from the
original position is a second argument
and that is a straightforwardly moral
argument and it goes like
this. It
says the distribution of income and
wealth and
opportunities should not be
based on
factors for which people can claim no credit.
credit.
It shouldn't be based on factors that
are arbitrary from a moral point of
view. RS illustrates this by
justice. He
begins with the theory of justice that
most everyone these days would
reject, a feudal aristocracy.
What's wrong with the allocation of life
prospects in a feudal
aristocracy? R says, well, the thing
that's obviously wrong about it is that
people's life prospects are determined
by the accident of birth. Are you born
to a noble family or to the family of
peasants and surfs? And that's it. You
can't rise. It's not your doing where
you wind up or what opportunities you have.
have.
But that's arbitrary from a moral point of
of
view. And so that objection to feudal aristocracy
aristocracy
leads and historically has led people to
say careers should be open to talents.
There should be formal equality of
opportunity regardless of the accident
of birth. Every person should be free to
strive to work to apply for any job in
the society. And then if you open up
jobs and you allow people to apply and
to work as hard as they can, then the
results are
just. So it's more or less the
libertarian system that we've discussed
in earlier weeks. What does RS think
about this? He says it's an improvement.
It's an improvement because it doesn't
take as
fixed the accident of birth. But even
with formal equality of opportunity, the
libertarian conception doesn't extend
that doesn't extend its insight far
enough. Because if you let everybody run the
the
race, everybody can enter the race, but
some people start at different starting
points, that race isn't going to be fair.
fair.
Intuitively, he says the most obvious
injustice of this system is that it
permits distributive shares to be
improperly influenced by factors
arbitrary from a moral point of view,
such as whether you got a good education or
or
not, whether you grew up in a family
that supported you and developed in you
a work ethic and gave you the
opportunities. So that suggests moving
to a system of fair equality of
opportunity. And that's really the
system that Mike was advocating earlier
on. What we might call a merit-based
system, a meritocratic system. In a fair
meritocracy, the society sets up
institutions to bring everyone to the
same starting point before the race begins.
begins.
equal educational
opportunities, Head Start programs, for
example, support for schools in impoverished
impoverished
neighborhoods, so that everyone,
regardless of their family
background, has a genuinely fair
opportunity. Everyone starts from the
same starting
line. Well, what does RS think about the
Even that, he says, doesn't go far
enough in
remedying or
arbitrariness of the natural
lottery. Because if you bring everyone
to the same starting
point and begin the race, who's going to
win the
race? Who would win? To use the runners
example, the fastest runners would
win. But but is it their doing that they
happen to be blessed with the athletic
So R says even the principle of
meritocracy where you bring everyone to
the same starting point may eliminate
the influence of social contingencies
and upbringing but it still permits the
distribution of wealth and income to be
determined by the natural distribution
of abilities and talents. And so he
thinks that the principle of eliminating
morally arbitrary influences in the
distribution of income and wealth
requires going
beyond what Mike favors, the meritocratic
meritocratic
system. Now, how do you go
beyond? If you bring everyone to the
same starting point and you're still
bothered by the fact that some are fast
runners and some are not fast runners,
what can you do?
Well, some critics of a more egalitarian
conception say the only thing you can do
is handicap the fast runners, make them
wear lead shoes, but who wants to do
that? That would defeat the whole point
of running the
race. But Wall
says you don't have to have a kind of
leveling equality if you want to go
beyond a meritocratic conception.
You permit, you even
encourage those who may be
gifted to exercise their talents. But
what you do is you change the terms on
which people are entitled to the fruits
of the exercise of those talents. And
that really is what the difference
principle is.
You establish a principle that says
people may benefit from their good
fortune from their luck in the genetic
lottery, but only on terms that work to
the advantage of the least welloff. And
example, Michael Jordan can make $31
million, but only under a system that
taxes away a chunk of that to help those
who lack the basketball skills that he's blessed
blessed
with. Likewise, Bill Gates, he can make his
his
billions, but he can't think that he
somehow morally deserves those
billions. Those who have been favored by
nature may gain from their good fortune,
but only on terms that improve the
situation of those who have lost out.
That's the difference principle, and
it's an argument from moral
arbitrariness. RS claims that if you're
bothered by basing distributive shares
on factors arbitrary from a moral point
of view, you don't just reject a feudal
aristocracy for a free market.
You don't even rest content with a
meritocratic system that brings everyone
to the same starting
point. You set up a system where
everyone, including those at the bottom,
benefit from the exercise of the talents
held by those who happen to be
lucky. What do you think? Is that persuasive?
Who's who finds that argument
unpersuasive? The argument for moral arbitrariness.
arbitrariness. Yes.
Yes.
I think that in the
egalitarian um proposition, the more
talented people, I think it's very
optimistic to think that they would um
would still work really hard even if
they knew that part of what they made
would be given away. So I think that the
only way for for the more talented
people to exercise their talents to the
best of their ability is in the meritocracy.
meritocracy.
And in a meritocracy, what's your name?
Kate. Kate, does it bother you? And
Mike, does it bother
you that in a meritocratic system, even
with fair equality of
opportunity, people get ahead? people
get rewards that they don't deserve
simply because they happen to be
naturally gifted. What about that? Um I
think that it is arbitrary. Um and
obvious obviously it's arbitrary but I
think that there that correcting for it
would be detrimental. Um and unlike
because it would reduce incentives. Is
that why? Reduce incentives. Yeah. Mike,
what do you say that we're all sitting
in this room and we have undeserved we
have undeserved glory of some sorts that
you should not be satisfied with the the
process of your life because you have
not created any of this and I think from
a standpoint of not just this room us
being upset but from a societal
standpoint we should have some kind of a
gut reaction to that feeling that you
know the guy who runs the race he
doesn't he actually harms us as opposed
to maybe makes me run that last 10 yards
faster and that makes the guy behind me
run 10 yards faster and the guy behind
him 10 yards faster. All right. So,
Mike, let me ask you. You talked about
effort before
effort. Do you think when people work
hard to get ahead and succeed that they
deserve the rewards that go with effort?
Isn't that the idea behind your defense?
I mean, of course, bring Michael Jordan
here. I'm sure you can get him. And have
him come and defend himself about why he
makes $31 million. And I think what
you're going to realize is his life was
a very, very tough one to get to the
top. and that we are basically being the
the majority oppressing the minority in
a different light. It's very easy to
pick on him. Very easy. Effort. You know what?
what?
You've got you've got a few I've got a
few lot of people
effort. You know what R's answer to that
is? Even the effort that some people
expend, conscientious driving, the work
ethic, even effort depends a lot on
fortunate family
circumstances for which you we can claim no
no
credit. Now,
let's wait. We're going to let let's do
the test. Let's do a test here. Never
mind economic class. Those differences
are very significant. Put those
aside. Psychologists say that birth
order makes a lot of difference in work
ethic striving
effort. How many here, raise your hand.
way. Mike, I noticed you raise your hand.
If the case for the meritocratic
conception is that effort should be
rewarded, doesn't RWS have a point that
even effort, striving, work ethic is
largely shaped even by birth
order. Is it your doing, Mike? Is it
your doing that you were first in birth
order? Then why R
says of course not. So why should income
and wealth and opportunities in
life be based on
factors arbitrary from a moral point of
view. That's a challenge that he
societies, but
also to those of us at places like this.
Haz clic en cualquier texto o marca de tiempo para ir directamente a ese momento del video
Compartir:
La mayoría de las transcripciones están listas en menos de 5 segundos
Copia con un clicMás de 125 idiomasBuscar en el contenidoIr a marcas de tiempo
Pega la URL de YouTube
Ingresa el enlace de cualquier video de YouTube para obtener la transcripción completa
Formulario de extracción de transcripción
La mayoría de las transcripciones están listas en menos de 5 segundos
Instala nuestra extensión para Chrome
Obtén transcripciones al instante sin salir de YouTube. Instala nuestra extensión de Chrome y accede con un clic a la transcripción de cualquier video directamente desde la página de reproducción.
