Samenvatting
Summary Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy Part 2
- Instelling
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)
Summary of all lectures and literature from second after the first midterm.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 29 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 29 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
HC7 Inequality within societies- Introduction: what justifies inequalities?
Waarom vuilnis mannen meer verdienen dan bankiers? (what they deserve to earn)
Your educated guess? How to rank different jobs in terms of their income
Some important approaches
Market justice: there is no distinction between ‘earning’ and ‘deserving’, your salary (price) reflects
your contribution (value)
Utilitarian justice: income inequalities are justified when they maximize ‘the greatest happiness for
the greatest number’
Meritocratic justice: people should be rewarded according to the formula (talent+ effort), your
contribution (value) should be reflected in your salary (price)
Liberal egalitarian justice: income should be distributed on the basis of ‘equal concern and respect’
- Liberal egalitarian justice
- Rawls’s famous two principles of justice
First principle: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic
liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all
Second principle: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and
Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity
First priority rule (the priority of liberty): the principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order and
therefore liberty can only be restricted for the sake of liberty
Second priority rule (The priority of justice over efficiency and welfare) –The second principle of justice
is lexically prior to the principle of efficiency and that of maximizing the sum of advantages; and fair
opportunity is prior to the difference principle.
- Illustrating the second principle: three options, (10-8-1), (7-6-2), (6-5-3)-> the third option is most likely
chosen because in the original position you don’t know your position in society so the worst off in option
three is not as bad as in the other options even though the sum is lower-> Utilitarian would take option 1
Income inequality is allowed as long as it benefits the worst off, even growth of inequality is justifiable if
the worst off have improved -> agrees with intuitions
- Counterintuitive conclusions (Kymlicka)
The second principle does not compensate for the natural inequalities -> ‘unlucky’ shouldn’t play a role in
chances
The second principle allows for subsidizing peoples choices -> one person is allowed to be better off if the
less good off benefits, thus the other person has to pay the choices that made the less good off
- Dworkins correction to Rawls
Principles of distribution should pass the so-called ‘envy-test’, and thus be both…
1. Endowment-insensitive
Natural luck alone should not justify a greater share of income
This prevents those without natural talents (or even ‘handicaps’) from envying the ‘lucky ones’
2. Ambition-sensitive
Effort and ambition are justified grounds for a greater share
This prevents the hard working people from envying the less ambitious and lazy
Two concrete examples of policies based on these principles
Workfare: those dependent on welfare should provide services in return
Double insurance scheme: basic healthcare for all, but private schemes when wanted (compare also
three-tier pension schemes)
- Beyond redistribution
Liberal egalitarianism presents itself as an alternative to market justice
However, as long as it accepts market economy ‘as it is’, the practical translation will always be
redistribution by taxes and transfers (ex post corrections)
Perhaps we should try to develop ex ante proposals to prevent social inequalities in the first place (pre-
distribution)
However, this may require to reconsider the basic elements of market economies
- Varieties of distribution and redistribution: GINI-coefficient -> after taxes better equality
- The capabilities approach
- Elements of the capabilities approach
The capabilities approach pretends to be superior to utilitarian (GDP) and quasi-Rawlsian (GDP plus
redistribution) approaches
Elements of the capabilities approach
1. It treats people as ends in themselves
, 2. It is focused on choice and freedom
3. It is pluralist about value
4. It is concerned with entrenched social injustice and inequality
5. It ascribes a task for government and public policy to enhance people’s capabilities
- What are capabilities?
Capabilities are more than just ‘formal’ individual freedoms; it also includes (im)possibilities of the
political, social and economic environment. In other words: ‘substantial freedoms’
Combined capabilities are more than ‘internal capabilities’: it refers to internal capabilities plus the social,
political, and economic environment (one of two is not enough)
The approach is strongly related to the idea of human flourishing and self-realization. It stresses that
‘internal capabilities’ are not just the natural talents by birth (basic capabilities), but also the capacity to
develop these talents
- What are the central capabilities?
1. Life
2. Health
3. Bodily integrity
4. Mental skills (‘senses, imagination and though’)
5. Emotions
6. Practical reason
7. Community (‘affiliation’)
8. Environmental health (‘other species’)
9. Play
10. Control of one’s environment (political rights, property rights, employment rights)
- Differences with…
Meritocratic approaches: people who need more help deserve more help-> capabilities need to be granted
to everyone
Utilitarian approaches: basic capabilities must be guaranteed for all
Rawlsian approaches
1. Basic minimum (‘threshold’)
2. But no adjustment of inequalities of outcomes in material conditions
- Defending equality of outcome
- From the arbitrariness of talent to the questioning choice
Market justice: inequality of outcomes is not a moral problem: it is the natural outcome of the law of
supply and demand
Utilitarian justice: Inequality of outcomes is justified when increases general welfare
Meritocratic justice: Once equalities of opportunities are guaranteed, market outcomes are also morally
justified: it reflects differences in talent + effort
Liberal egalitarian justice: Meritocracy does not acknowledge that talents are distributed arbitrarily, and
morally irrelevant: it should be effort and personal choice that matter most (ambition-sensitive).
Next question: should we not also problematize the question of choice
Philips argument: if we offer people the same chances but, as a result, the outcomes include structural
differences than the problem of liberals is that they suggest that that is due to choice. But there are
equal chances, thus there must be structural reasons for the differences (e.g. women representation)
- What about inequality of outcomes between groups?
Liberalism is prepared to equalize equality of opportunity for all, but it is reluctant to equalize outcomes
But what if…
1. The outcome is that women and ethnic minorities are underrepresented in politics?
2. The outcomes is the women (and some ethnic minority groups) are underrepresented in the labour
market?
Should we interpret this as the outcome of choices and responsibilities? Or as a sign there is no real
equality of opportunities?….
- Should we not equalize outcomes for groups?
1. Mirror-representation (parliaments), demand parliament representation without differences with society
2. Active affirmative action policies, ensure equal opportunities
3. Quota, reversing the historical injustice-> is it just or not?
- Finally: what has not been addressed
Should we not also mind the gap?
All approaches presented here do not argue for narrowing the absolute or relative inequality in material
wealth
Ad Rawls: as long as the poor get better…
, Ad Nussbaum: as long as a minimum is guaranteed …
… there is no maximum of justified accumulated individual wealth
Reading: Liberal equality, Kymlicka
- Utilitarianism versus intuitionism
- Intuitionism: plurality of first principles, no explicit method, no rules, balance by intuition
Balance through intuition
Need constructive criteria
- General conception of justice (Rawls): all social primary goods-liberty and opportunity, income and wealth,
and the bases of self-respect are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these
goods is to the advantage of the least favoured
Inequalities if they improve initial equal share, but not if they invade fair share
Lexical priority:
The principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order and therefore liberty can be restricted only
for the sake of liberty
The second principle of justice is lexically prior to the principle of efficiency and to that of
maximizing the sum of advantages; and fair opportunity is prior to the difference principle
Some good more important than others-> equal liberties over equal opportunity over equal resources ->
still need to benefit least well off
- Equality of opportunity is justification for economic distribution-> only fair competition
Rawls says also for equality of opportunity in positions, those not gaining more resources as a result ->
least well off should benefit (difference principle)
In equality of opportunity least well off don’t need to profit
Fate should not decide end position -> choices rather than circumstances
It is fair for individuals to have unequal shares of social goods if those inequalities are earned and
deserved by the individual, that is, if they are the product of the individual's actions and choices-> But it
is unfair for individuals to be disadvantaged or privileged by arbitrary and undeserved differences in their
social circumstances
Talent and social circumstances hinders equality of opportunity -> ignored, not a basis of choice
Rawls says: talent should flourish if benefitted the least well off (difference principle)-> fair shares:
successful because of talent only if improve least advantaged -> what about inequality when you have no
talent, richer than others
- Social contract argument (Rawls)
Social contract argument ask to imagine a state before political authority-> then contract-> however there
is not state of nature or social contract to begin with, none are bound by it
Social contract used for the moral equality of individuals -> each born equal and free, no natural
subordination -> government then as protection against uncertainties and scarcities -> trust -> if broken
trust then rebellion
Rawls: original position-> in state of nature still inequality (e.g. talent, strength)-> veil of ignorance -> no
one knows their advantage or disadvantage -> test of fairness -> equality between people as moral
persons-> all would consent to: principle of justice
Rawls: primary goods needed for the pursue of the good life-> social primary goods (income, wealth,
rights etc.) and natural primary goods (health, intelligence, talent etc.) -> under veil of ignorance try to
achieve access to these goods because don’t know where end up -> utilitarianism irrational -> maximin
strategy: you maximize what you would get at minimum
Before know which principles are being chosen, we need to know description of original position -> also
justice -> modify original position to match intuition
- Intuition same as idea of natural equality in state of nature, contract help what is more required for equality
besides intuition, intuition changes if personal interests are taken away contract renders general institutions
with impartial perspective from which we can pick more specific intuitions-> social contract not required
though -> just need people that don’t know their own particular good -> can also just ask
Intuitive argument primary, contract helps express it-> Rawls needs reflective equilibrium: one we can
render coherent and justify convictions of justice
Rawls: too much room natural inequality and too little room influence of our choices
Difference principle best to go against unfair influence -> worst-off only in terms of social goods
Rawls claims social and natural goods are equally deserved, and compensating only social ones is
thus unequal-> natural and social inequalities should thus both be compensated
Intuition and contract reasons-> yet Rawls doesn’t recognize desirability to compensate inequalities
People starting from the same position, one becomes richer because of choice-> difference principles says
other must also become richer otherwise use a tax-> differences in preference for lifestyle -> tax would
undermine equality (why should the beneficial choice pay for the leisure choice)
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper svandoorm. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 79751 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen