Summery - Book Report/Review Example

Summary This lecture by Michael J. Sandel is an assessment of John Rawls’ answer to the question; how wealth and income should be distributed among people? Principles of justice are derived from a hypothetical contract that has to be based on equality. People prefer fundamental rights to freedom and liberty over utilitarianism once the veil of ignorance has been lifted. Second principle is about difference principle of equality; Inequalities that serve the least well-off are permitted. Distribution should be based on principles going beyond meritocracy.

Theories of distributive justice discussed in the lecture include libertarian theory based on free market system, meritrocactic theory based on fair equality of opportunity and egalitarian theory defined by Rawls’ difference principle. Since the role of natural abilities, fortune, and such other factors arbitrary to the moral view like being the “first born” cannot be undermined, it is imperative that they are allowed to exercise only on terms that they advantage those without such abilities and fortune in some way.

The highest earning people are allowed excessively high pay-scales because a significant portion of their income goes to the poor in taxes and also because they work as part of a system that helps the poor sustain. At least three objections can be raised to Rawls’ difference principle. The first one is about ‘incentives’. However, it is not the decisive objective to Rawls’ difference principle. The second and the third objections of ‘effort’ and ‘self-ownership’ are weightier compared to the objection of incentives.

The objection of effort comes from the supporters of the meritrocractic conception whereas the objection of self-ownership is grounded in libertarianism. Rawls’ answer to the supporters of meritrocratic conception is that while people may be entitled to more benefits because they have strived hard for them, but the fact that certain circumstances in their life that naturally placed them in a position to work hard and claim those benefits like being born to a rich family or being born with natural talents cannot be ruled out of the equation.

Another answer of Rawls to the supporters of meritrocractic conception is that it is not really effort that they consider the moral basis of reward. Instead, it is the outcome or contribution that is presented as the moral basis of distributive shares. On the other hand, supporters of libertarianism assert that the act of taxing the high earners in order to build facilities for the poor is coercion and may be interpreted as theft provided the rich do not want to voluntarily be taxed for such services.

To this, Rawls says that we can honor human dignity and respect humanity without embracing the idea of self-ownership. Distributive justice is about moral desert on one hand, and entitlements to legitimate expectations on the other hand. What counts as contributing depends upon the qualities and traits valued by the society which are morally arbitrative. Having fewer talents or being entitled to less does not make an individual less worthy as compared to the ones that are more talented or are entitled to more.