A Theory of Justice by John Rawls - Assignment Example

1.) In his work, A Theory of Justice (1971), John Rawls posits two principles of justice. Rawls’ first principle of justice is predicated upon liberty. In his first principle, he explains that each individual has an equal right to a comprehensive system of basic liberties that correspond to a similar system for all citizens.1 He argues that each person should have the greatest amount of liberty that is compatible with equal levels of liberty for all people. According to Rawls, the most important commodity is liberty and if an individual lacks the freedom to pursue their idea of the good life, then no other commodities are important.2 Within his framework of liberty, Rawls includes political liberty, freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom from psychological oppression and bodily harm, the liberty of land ownership, and the freedom from unlawful arrest.3 Rawls’ second principle of justice is predicated upon the distribution of social and economic advantages.4 He argues that both social and economic disparities should be arranged so that they are of the greatest benefit to the least advantaged and there should be an established infrastructure of offices and positions that are under conditions of equal opportunity.5 He explains that inequalities in the distribution of goods are justifiable under the following two conditions: first, if they function to aid the least advantaged citizens and second, if positions within the infrastructure of distribution are open to all individuals.6 Rawls defines these two conditions as the difference principle and the equal opportunity principle respectively. The difference principle illustrates Rawls’ egalitarian perspective of justice. He posits that both social and economic disparities of distribution are morally justified only if they primarily aid the poorest members of a society. Rawls explains that the inequality of goods results in a significant number of individuals within a society becoming worse off than they would have been had all goods been equally distributed. He believes that any inequality that does not function to benefit the poorest members of a society is unjustified. He argues that the government must intercede in order to eliminate this inequality. In his equal opportunity principle, Rawls posits that social and economic disparities are morally justified only if they are attached to an infrastructure of offices and employment opportunities that are available to all individuals under conditions of equal opportunity.7 In his work, Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), Robert Nozick challenges Rawls’ A Theory of Justice. Nozick describes his entitlement theory as a hypothesis of distributive justice that is intended to compete with Rawls’ theory of justice in the distribution of goods. The entitlement theory is comprised of three principles of entitlement of holdings, and each of these principles is dependent upon one of the three principles of justice in holdings. The principle of entitlement of acquisition, transfer, and exhaustiveness are the main constituents of his theory.8 Nozick argues that end-result principles are insufficient, and by overlooking the historical facts regarding the manner in which a given distribution came about, an essential value is excluded from moral reasoning. He describes this liberty as the right for an individual to transfer what they hold and to hold what other people have voluntarily transferred to the individual.9 Nozick uses the Wilt Chamberlain example to illustrate his argument. Consider that all property including money is distributed equally to all citizens in a just manner; this scenario is known as D1. Consider that Wilt Chamberlain is hired to play basketball for the Lakers and that his one-year contract specifies that all people that attend the basketball games must drop a quarter into a box with Chamberlain’s name on it in addition to paying the ticket price. Chamberlain is allowed to keep the money in the box after each game. Consider that there are one million attendees that season that willingly paid the extra fee in addition to the ticket price due to the fact that they wanted to see Chamberlain play. As a result of these factors, Chamberlain becomes wealthier than most individuals; this unequal distribution is known as D2. Nozick posits that D2 is not unjust. He argues that if an individual begins at D1 and then becomes wealthy due to the fact that other people willingly gave the individual a portion of their own money, then this unequal distribution is morally acceptable.10 Voluntary transfers result in the unequal distribution of goods. According to his entitlement theory, Nozick explains that the legitimacy of a transfer of goods is predicated upon the willingness of the individual to pay for a particular good.11 Though Rawls would argue that the type of distribution involved in the Wilt Chamberlain example is unjust, the researcher believes that Nozick is right that we should put economic liberties into Rawls’ first principle, and abandon Rawls’ second principle. Nozick’s argument is justified due to the fact that no end-state principle or distributional patterned principle of justice could be implemented without continuous interference with peoples’ lives. If Rawls’ second principle was implemented, it would continuously violate an individual’s right of transfer.12 2.) In their article, Ayres and Kysar (2008) posit how the theory of moral sentiments could be applied to cap-and-trade emissions. For their first proposal, they explain that the more industrialized nations seek permit allotments that record historic emissions rates. This method would secure their economic advantage as granting permits would be predicated upon the quantity of emissions a country is already emitting.13 In their second proposal, Ayres and Kysar explain that developing countries prefer permits that are distributed according to population size. In this case, each individual would have equal emissions rights. Proponents of this version of cap-and-trade point out the fact that poorer nations have had less of an impact on global warming compared with many of the developed nations. They explain that countries that have contributed most to global warming such, as the United States, should be granted fewer permits due to the fact that they have previously consumed their share of the earth’s GHG budget.14 The authors point out that Adam Smith’s theories in favor of free trade implicitly put forward the fact that owners of capital would inherently prefer domestic over foreign industry. Despite the fact that foreign industry may offer higher returns, Smith believed that his proposal was sound because it reflected the moral sentiments that drive the markets to function properly.15 In other words, his theory reflected the assumption that we are more attached to those closer to us. The sense of social allegiance is minimized within the modern global economy as capitalists pursue investment opportunities around the word. Despite this fact, companies, activists, and others have aimed to reintroduce the market with moral substance by revealing information about the conditions involved in producing products.16 In this case, moral sentiment is not reliant on whether we are closer or farther away from the affected individuals. Though the market allows for the process of moral sentiment, it does not require it. The demand of consumers for moral awareness in consumption has increased and the boundaries between citizen and consumer, government and economy, and local and foreign is becoming less defined.17 Ayres and Kysar believe that the market is becoming as morally rich as Adam Smith perceived it, though only on a global basis. For the third proposal, Ayres and Kysar posit that the GHG permits should be separated into various brands based upon how important each nation regards the issue of climate justice.18 Consider a yearly GHG cap that is subdivided into two groups. In the first group, each nation would receive a share of “regular” permits that are predicated upon the historic emissions rates or base-line allocation method that materializes from international negotiations.19 In the second group, each nation would receive “justice” permits that are predicated upon a formula that factors in population size, and prior contributions to climate change.20 Ayres and Kysar argue that the most efficient approach to allotting justice permits is consistent with the preferred approach of developing nations. They call this the “distributive justice” approach.21 The authors also posit a “distributive plus corrective justice” approach that is a more complex formula that would place further emphasis in favor of developing nations due to the fact of unequal past contributions to the current GHG buildup.22 The researcher believes that the third proposal is a just solution to the problem of controlling greenhouse gases. Applying the third proposal shifts the debate away from a focus on an all-or-nothing single climate currency. The researcher believes that the theory effectively addresses the issue of cap-and-trade greenhouse-gas emissions in a just and efficient manner. Both regular and justice permits would allow the given nation to emit one ton of carbon dioxide and both permits would be tradable. In addition to this, the justice permits include the right to advertise that goods and services were produced utilizing the more equitably allocated emissions rights.23 The moral sentiments of consumers would then establish if justice-branded goods could be sold at a premium. 3.) Positive natural rights are human rights that an individual must actively pursue in order to attain. Within the discourse of human rights, there is an assumption that the rights in question are natural, innate, or God-given. There is a distinct demarcation between positive and negative rights. Property rights are an example of negative rights. In order for an individual to respect this set of rights, they must refrain from specific actions such as trespassing. In contrast to this, an individual exercising their positive rights must actively pursue a particular action. An example of this is the right to higher education in which an individual must actively practice this right in order to initiate and complete the process Blackstone posits that human laws are similar to scientific laws. He argues that both sets of laws were created by God and were waiting to be revealed and understood by humans. He believes that a hierarchical organization of human laws exist which results in laws flowing from the superior to inferior levels. He describes the superior levels as the monarchy or government and the inferior levels as the citizens within the nation. He describes humans as endowed with reason and freewill and argues that positive laws of human nature exist whereby freewill is regulated and restrained. Blackstone believes that the fundamental aim of society is to safeguard individuals in the enjoyment of absolute rights that are bestowed on them by the laws of nature.24 He believes that this law of nature is contemporary and dictated by God. He argues that any human law that contradicts these laws is not valid.25 During later periods of time, this theory provided the basis of effective slogans for the reactionary employment of natural law.26 Blackstone approved of the status quo by associating the traditional rights of Englishmen with the natural rights of man that were founded upon nature and reason. He explains that in the order of reasoning and being, the fundamental detail is natural liberty, from which he supposes the juridic conclusion that authority is not natural to mankind.27 He explained that if these rights were made into positive law, they would specify the contents of the rights to life, personal security, personal liberty and private property.28 According to Blackstone, an individual has a moral right to a good or service when possession of that thing is essential in them to fulfill their capacities as a rational and free being. He argues that during the present epoch, it has become clear that a habitable environment is necessary for the fulfillment of one’s human capacity. Therefore he posits that people have a moral right to a decent environment and he argues that this right should become a legal right.29 In addition to this, he explains that this moral and legal right must supersede an individual’s legal property rights. The increasing ability that individuals have to manipulate the environment has shown that unless individuals limit the legal freedom to employ practices that destroy the environment, they will lose the possibility of human life and the prospect of living a human life as well as the prospect of exercising other rights, such as the right to liberty and equality.30 Blackstone’s hypothesis is a theory of positive human rights. He is aware of the social nature of human existence. He explains that the character of human life exists so that an individual is not able to achieve their happiness that is consistent with nature, without recognizing and honoring the rules of justice.31 In order to illustrate this concept, an individual may ask himself or herself what is required in order for their rights to be respected. He recommends a significant amount of government interference within the free market.32 Two assumptions may be surmised from his theory: first whenever there are rights involved, respecting them is a matter of justice; second, it is the responsibility of the government to implement justice. In order to illustrate the implications of applying natural positive rights within a free-market system, consider the hypothetical scenario of a truly free market education system. In order to understand the behavior of firms within a market, we must recognize the context in which the behavior is taking place.33 The constituents of a model to explain such a system includes supply and demand features, the structure of the market, and the goals of the firms. Applying this model to the higher education industry is complex due to the fact that there are factors that impose conflicting demands on institutions, and in addition to this, there are significant social aspects to consider.34 The secondary education system of the United States is an example of a free-market structure.35 In order to receive a secondary education in this system, an individual must be able to pay the fees associated with the institution. Blackstone would argue that this system is inconsistent with natural positive rights due to the fact that it should be a natural right for all citizens to attain a higher education regardless of socio-economic status.36 According to his theory, he would take an ideal element of society, such as higher education, and transform into the entitlement of a human right.37 An example of a secondary education system that is more consistent to Blackstone’s theory of natural positive rights is the French secondary education system.38 The government controls this system, and the cost of education is subsidized by taxation of its citizens.39 If we apply the theory of Blackwell into a system consistent with the French education system, free-market functioning of secondary education would be non-existent. Read More