LECTURE/ HANDOUT 13- JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS: PROMOTING

THE COMMON GOOD

OBJECTIVES:

At the end of lecture/handout 13, the student will be able to:

 understand Rawl’s principled reconciliation of liberty and equality that is meant to

apply to the basic structure of a well-ordered society.
 awaken awareness that the theory of justice and fairness describes a society of free
citizens holding equal basic rights and cooperating within an egalitarian economic
system.
 evaluate the moral context of social and political institutions.
 understand that basic liberties could be limited, but only for the sake of liberty.
 understand that society could not avoid inequalities among its people and that in
real world inequalities result from things such as a person’s inherited characteristics,
social class, personal motivation and even “luck”.
 learn what distributive justice is and how it is applied in a democratic country like the
Philippines.

PRETEST
NONE

INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW

 Rawl rejects utilitarianism and offers a number of arguments against such a theory.
 Utilitarianism thinking cannot absolutely exclude systems such as slavery or racial
segregation as there is nothing in the moral theory to dismiss them from
consideration.
 There are two basic principles of social justice - The first and second principle
 The first principle is concerned with political institutions and the second with social
and economic institution and their relationship to each other.
 There are two conditions that social and economic inequalities satisfy.
 Rawl’s refer to the best jobs in private business and public employment by the term
‘offices and positions’.
 Society should eradicate discrimination and afford everybody easy access to
education.
 Rawl’s theory states that: all differences in wealth and income, all social and
economic inequalities should work for the good of the least favored.
 Rawl’s argued that unless institutions such as the constitution, economy and
educational system functioned in a just way for all, social justice would not truly
exist in a society.
 To the value of impartiality, Rawl’s added a condition to assure that the choice of
social justice principles would truly be unbiased.
 Rawl contended that in the distribution of wealth and income in a just society, the
members should adopt what philosophers call maximum-minimum or “maximin “
rule.
 The common types of distributive norms are: equity, equality, power, need,
responsibility.

Rawls’ Justice as Fairness

Rawls (1921-2002) was considered the most important political
philosopher of the 20th century. He maintains that slavery is wrong under all situations,
regardless of any utility calculations, for it does not respect the fundamental rights and
liberties of all persons. Slavery is wrong because it is unproductive or inefficient, but
because it is unjust, for it does not consider individual rights inviolable.
Rawls’ two principles of justice from his classic work A Theory of Justice,
his last version published in 2001:
 Rawls’ First Principle - The Liberty Principle—concerns political institutions
“ Each person has the same and indefeasible (permanent) claim to a fully
adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible
with the same scheme of liberties for all.”
This means that everybody has the same basic liberties which can never
be taken away. This first principle is very Kantian in that it provides for basic and
universal respect for individuals as a minimum standard for all just institutions.
Rawls gave as examples most of the liberties in the U.S. Bill of Rights, such as
freedom of speech and due process of law. He nonetheless added some liberties
from the larger sphere of human rights such as freedom of travel. Rawls also
recognized the right of private persons, corporations, or workers to own private
property. He, however, omitted the right to own the ‘means of production’ such as
mines, factories, and farms. He also left out the right to inherit wealth. In his view,
these things were not basic.
The American philosopher agreed that the basic liberties could be
limited, but only for the sake of liberty. Hence, restricting the liberties of an
intolerant group that aims to harm the liberties of others may be justified.

 Rawls Second Principle- consisted of ‘fair equality of opportunity’ and the

Difference Principle’- concerns social and economic institutions:
 “ Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions (1) they are to be
attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity; and (2) they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged
members of society (the ‘Difference Principle’).”
While focused on equality, the Second Principle recognizes that a
society could not avoid inequalities among its people. In real world, inequalities
result from things such as a person’s inherited characteristics, social class,
personal motivation, and even ‘luck’. Even so, Rawls maintained that a just
society ought to find ways to lessen inequalities in areas where it can function.
Rawls specially refers to the best jobs in private business and public
employment by the term offices and positions in his Second Principle. He
proposed that these jobs must be ‘open’ to everybody by the society granting fair
equality of opportunity. For this purpose, society should, among other things,
eradicate discrimination and afford everybody easy access to education.
Rawls Difference Principle is the ideal but controversial element of his
theory of social justice. In a 1968 essay, he framed it in this manner: “All
differences in wealth and income, all social and economic inequalities should
work for the good of the least favored” (John Rawls and His Theory of
Justice,”n.d.). When he wrote A Theory of Justice, he used “least-advantaged
members of society” for “least favored.” By these terms, he meant those at the
bottom of economic ladder such as unskilled individuals who earn the lowest
wages in the society.
Rawls preferred maximizing the improvement of the ‘least advantaged’
group in society under his Difference Principle. To this end, he suggested
providing ‘fair equality of opportunity and other possible ways such as
guaranteed minimum income or minimum wage.

An Evaluation of Rawls’ Principles

One of the criticisms against Rawls Justice as Fairness is that they do
not allow ample tolerance for various religious and intensely held benefits. For instance,
if individuals belong to a religion that teaches men and women are equal in some
aspects and parts of life, those will contradict Rawls’ principles about equality of basic
liberties and equal opportunity.
Others find controversial, if not downright unacceptable, Rawls’
Difference principle, the idea that the greatest benefit must go to the least advantaged.
People such as conservative and free-market critics argue that it is unjust to get from
the most advantaged people what they have earned and redistribute it for the benefit of
the less fortunate. Some also reason that explanations for how persons come to be in
more or less advantaged positions is very much relevant to fairness. Some people for
instance, deserve a higher level of material goods because of their productiveness and
diligence, or contributions to society.
Rawls himself admitted that his concepts for a just society was highly
idealized. He also acknowledged that currently, there is just a little support for his
Difference Principle in our public culture.

Distributive Justice
This concept basically concerns the nature of a socially just allocation og
goods in a society. If incidental inequalities in outcome do not rise, then principles of
distributive justice is said to exist in a society. Distributive justice includes the
quantities of goods, the process by which goods are distributed, and the subsequent
allocation of the goods to society members.
People usually turn to the distributive norms of their group to determine
whether distributive justice has occurred. A norm is the standard behavior that is
required, desired, or designated as normal within a specific group. Distributive justice is
said to have occurred if rewards and costs are allocated according to the designated
distributive norm of the group.

The following are the common types of distributive norms:

 Equity: Members’ outcomes should be based upon their inputs. Therefore, an
individual who has invested a large amount of input (e.g. time, money, energy)
should receive more from the group than someone who has contributed very
little. Members of large groups prefer to base allocations of rewards and costs on
equity.

 Equality: Regardless of their inputs, all group members should be given an equal
share of the reward/costs. Equally supports that someone who contributes 20%
of the group’s resources should receive as much as someone who contributes
60%.

 Power: Those with more authority, status, or control over the group should
receive more than those in lower level positions.

 Need: Those in greatest needs should be provided with resources needed to

meet those needs. These individuals should be given more resources than those
who already possess them, regardless of their input.
  Responsibility: Group members who have the most should share their resources
with those who have less.

Distributive justice, in social psychology, is defined as perceived fairness

of how rewards and costs are shared by, or distributed across, group members. When
workers of the same job, for instance, are paid different salaries, group members may
feel that distributive justice has not transpired. In the context of organizational justice,
distributive justice as a principle is seen as fairness associated with outcomes decisions
and distribution of resources.
Going back to John Rawls, his theory of justice exhibits a simple idea,
that is, that the concern of distributive justice is to compensate persons for misfortune.
Some are blessed with good luck, some are cursed with bad luck, and it is thus the
obligation of society, all of us regarded collectively, to revise the distribution of goods
and evils that ascends from the jumble of lotteries that constitutes human life as we
know it. Some are fortunate to be born affluent, or into a fortunate socializing setting, or
with a tendency to be fascinating, bright, determined, and the like. These individuals are
likely to be prosperous in the economic marketplace and to attain success in other
significant ways over the course of their lives. Some people, on the other hand, are, as
we say, born to lose. For Rawls therefore, distributive justice demands that the lucky
ought to allocate some or all of their gains due to luck to the unlucky.

Various socio- economic political theories have differentiated, but

somewhat related, view of distributive justice:
 Egalitarian. Egalitarian is a set of closely related socio-economic-political
theories that without exemption promote the proposition that all society members
ought to have exactly equal amount of resources. Simpler egalitarian theories are
satisfied with the view that everybody should be given, at all costs, completely
equal quantity of some basic material goods, like money. But more refined
egalitarian thinkers are conscious that such a distribution would have many
shortcomings. For instance, those with greater needs for which they are not
themselves responsible (say, the handicapped people) would get less fulfillment
than others, because they would have to use a great share of their resources
only to catch up others, if ever, in normal functioning. Moreover, the lazy and idle
people would be rewarded and the skillful and hardworking would be
discouraged.

Rawls’ ‘Justice as Fairness’ principle is often called ‘Rawlsian egalitarianism. But

one of Rawls’ tenets suggests that inequalities are permissible, and can even be
to the advantage of all, but only if they meet some conditions. Thus, Rawls’
principles are not strictly egalitarian, but are not laissez faire either.
  Capitalist. Leissez-faire capitalist distributive justice is when people,
businesses, and corporations perform based on their individual self-interest for
their own benefit. The principal role of government is to allow a free and fair
market system, as well as to protect persons, businesses, and corporations from
taking the benefits of their actions appropriated by others.

For Rawls, pure laissez-faire capitalism is also unjust, because it tends to

generate an unfair distribution of wealth and income concentrated in the hands of
a few, which, in turn and in effect deprives some if not most citizens of the basic
means essential to compete fairly for desired benefits, offices, and positions.
According to Rawls, a just society would be a ‘property-owning democracy’ in
which ownership of the means of production is broadly distributed and those who
are worst off are affluent enough to be economically independent.

 Socialist. State socialist distributive justice is a system where the government or

a central authority controls the production of goods and services. From 1918 to
1989, the former Soviet Union practiced this state socialism. India also
illustrated this system from independence from the British in 1947 to the early
1990s.

Perhaps a better version of a socialist distributive justice is that of democratic

socialism. Also called ‘welfare democracy’, democratic socialist distributive
justice has a system of social insurance to help disadvantaged persons. The
system incorporates free-market principles in producing goods and services with
general principles about compassion and concern for others. Some economic
sectors such as health care, energy distribution, transportation, and aerospace
may be government owned or controlled. European democratic socialist
countries like Denmark, Sweden, and The Netherlands practice this system.
Japan also implements this principle of distributive justice.

State and Citizens Responsibility

Taxation and Inclusive Growth
Taxation is a means by which the state and its citizens accomplish their
responsibilities to each other. By definition, taxation is a means by which states or
governments finance their expenditure, basically and ideally for constituents, by
imposing charges on them and corporate entities. Government expenditures
fundamentally involve social welfare programs for citizens.
This relationship between taxes and social welfare programs drives the
proposition that taxes are essentially ‘socialist’. By ‘socialist’ in that context, however,
we do not mean the socialism of Soviet Russia or China under Chairman Mao Zedong
(Mao Tse Tung), that type of socialism in which the state owns and controls all means
of production (i.e. all industry) and where there is no such things as private property.
(That form of socialism has communism as its ultimate ideal). Instead, we mean the
democratic socialism practiced in many Western European countries as previously
explained.
Democratic socialism works hand in hand with capitalism, free markets,
and private property. The system requires paying high taxes to help pay for a wide
range of state-funded social services, such as free universal health care, free education
through college, state pensions, extensive unemployment benefits, more vacation days,
and substantial benefits for mothers and children.
Taxation and social welfare programs are related to another concept
called inclusive growth. Inclusive growth is “economic growth that creates opportunity
for all segments of the population and distributes the dividends of increased prosperity,
both in monetary and non-monetary terms, fairly across society” (Inclusive Growth,”n.d.)
In many capitalist countries, it is said that people have not seen their
incomes rise for many years. The gap between rich and poor has enlarged, with those
at the top seizing the lion’s share’ of growth. Increasing inequality in earnings and in
wealth is thus a major concern in many countries.
Concerning inclusive growth, there have been constant allegations on
capitalism that its growth is not trickled down to everybody. Some economists thus
argue that democratic socialism, not capitalism, could really result inclusive growth.

REFERENCE:

Bulaong, Oscar G.et al 2018 Ethics Foundations of Moral Valuation. Rex Bookstore Inc.
Nicanor Reyes
St. Recto Ave. Manila, Philippines

De Guzman, J.M. et al 2017 Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society. Mutya

Publishing House Inc. Potrero, Malabon
Manebog, J.DG. Ethics: A primer Appendix A
Plato on Justice http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic

Gallinero, Winston B. et al 2018 Ethics. Mutya Publishing House Inc. Pateros Malabon
City
Pasco, Marc Oliver D. et al 2018. Ethics. C&E Publishing Inc. Quezon City, Philippines