Rawls Theory of Justice

Online at: http://www.slideshare.net/hughbar/

Background (from Stanford Encylopedia)

Son of a lawyer (clearly affected style and approach, 'case law' can feed back into higher principles: reflective equilibrium) Involved in war (fragility/capriciousness of fate: see also Nussbaum)

Defining Features Loosens tie beween moral and political, freer to argue and do

'society creation' Like Plato, concerned with trying for 'justice' Coherentist: (with evolving viewpoint) reflective equilbrium

following (internal?) debate (according to him, but not to Nagel) Somewhat Kantian

(categorical imperative), 'big' general motor (the principles) to power the rest

Contract-based, the 'original position' (but is this a 'virtual contract' or thought experiment, sidesteps some criticims)

Defining Features 2

Optimistic: Assumes rationality of individuals Assumes inbuilt sense of justice of individuals

(I think, or just rationality) Utopian (society/world building like Plato) Wants to be 'optimal' (utilitarianism allows

inequalities/suffering in context of maximal 'happiness', see minimax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax)

Notes on Primary Reading 1

§1 Justice is the first virtue But, immediately anti utilitarian/anti-'intuitionism' Public conception justice motor of well-ordered human

association Coordination, efficiency, flexiblity also necessary Legal oration, to some extent

Notes on Primary Reading 2

§2 Social justice only (political, economic, social, this is

one of the 'controversies') No reason to argue for all cases (private societies,

international cases later) Start with ideal theory (Kantian), used to deal later

with detail problems In principle, no pleonexia, anywhere in system even if

of benefit (anti-utilitarian, improve not invade)

Notes on Primary Reading 3

§3,4,11 Original position (the virtual contract) Veil of Ignorance (thought experiment for the

'rational' to choose 'their' society) Two principles arranged lexically Not dealt with in detail, since this is bulk of the

Rawls lecture notes

Notes on Primary Reading 4

§24: Veil of ignorance, except of 'general facts about society' (another difficulty, how much 'ignorance'?)

Justice should generate its own support (bootstrapping) §25: Mutually disinterested rationality (sounds a bit like Ayn

Rand!) §26

Criticisms 1 (IMO) Looser tie with ethics etc. I find that OK and sensible Difference principle: Lots of people (well, philosophers) argue about

this, for example maximal inequality for minimal but slight 'improvement' (for example: current society? The Sheep Look Up)

Arguing sensibly about existing societies: Same problems as lots of 'contracts'

Neo-Platonists (!) Philosopher kings not included, some kind of democracy is pre-baked into this

Nozick: Property rights not included, base freedoms abandoned at outset (therefore, for him: probably unambitious and maximal)

Hayek: Doesn't believe in social justice at all (well what do you expect)

Wolfe/economists etc. Granularity of share: assumed individual persons

Criticisms 2 Are the natural and social primary goods OK? (Maslow?) Mathematical arguments in §26 muddy the idea of justice What are just institutions? (governance: consider the PACs,

superPACs and super-delegates in the US, for example) Following Wolfe et al. Granularity of society, families, private

groups etc. In general, value of community is ignored, about individuals Supposing 'intuitionism' is 'right' (my pick) Choice, birth and circumstance (key parts of advantage and

disadvantage

Reward !

Congratulations: You have reached the end of this, Easter Eggs:

https://youtu.be/BaRx52OD8IY