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 ID: 272823
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "What is a Just Society?" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
What is a Just Society?
What is Justice?Slide2
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?Slide3
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 leisureBurdens: unpleasant work, doing without benefits, taking care of dependentsSlide4
How Should Things be Divided?
Three main ways to divide (based on distributive justice
)
1) Simple
Equality (Egalitarianism): Dividing benefits and burdens equally amongst everyone
2) 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. Slide5
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 achievedSlide6
Meritorians
Meritorians argue against the EgalitariansThe 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 luckSlide7
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.Slide8
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 allSlide9
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. Slide10
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 labourSlide11
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
pleaseSlide12
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
socialistsSlide13
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
. 213Is it society’s influence or natural instinct to want to own things?Slide14
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 harmSlide15
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 propertySlide16
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 contractGovernment would then have the ability to make and enforce rules and social
policiesSlide17
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
personSlide18
Rousseau’s Contract
Rousseau argued that inequalities are not natural and are avoidableHe
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