Justice and Fairness

Distributive Justice
 Justice and Fairness
• Standards of justice vs. Utilitarian considerations
• Standards of justice vs. Moral rights
• Distributive, retributive, and compensatory justice
• Distributive justice
– Conflicting claims on benefits and burdens
– Fundamental Principle
• Individuals who are similar in all respects relevant to the kind
of treatment in question should be given similar benefits and
burdens, even if they are dissimilar in other irrelevant
respects; and individuals who are dissimilar in a relevant
respect ought to be treated dissimilarly, in proportion to their
dissimilarity
 Justice as Equality: Egalitarianism
• Every person should be given exactly equal
shares of a society’s or a group’s benefits and
burdens.
• Criticism
– Human beings are unequal
– Important characteristics are ignored (need, ability,
effort)
• Responses
– Political vs. Economic equality
 Justice Based on Contribution: Capitalist
Justice
• Benefits should be distributed according to the
value of the contribution the individual makes
to a society, a task, a group, or an exchange
• How to measure the value of contribution?
– Work effort
– Productivity
– Market forces of supply and demand
 Justice Based on Needs and Abilities:
Socialism
• Work burdens should be distributed according to
people’s abilities, and benefits should be
distributed according to people’s needs
• The model of a family
• Criticism based on lack of relation between the
amount of effort and the amount of
remuneration (In essence, a criticism of the
familial model)
• Human freedom is obliterated
Justice as Freedom: Libertarianism
• From each according to what he chooses to do, to each according
to what he makes for himself (perhaps with the contracted aid of
others) and what others choose to do for him and choose to give
him of what they’ve been given previously (under this maxim)
and haven’t yet expended or transferred
• Simply put, “from each as they choose, to each as they are
chosen”
• Critics argue that one value is chosen– freedom from the
coercion of others– and all other rights and values are sacrificed
to it
• Libertarian principle of distributive justice will generate unjust
treatment of the disadvantaged
Justice as Freedom: Libertarianism

• Economic inequality in the world

• The top 0.00000001 percent are worth
as much as the bottom 50 percent
combined
• Top 1 percent control nearly half the
world’s wealth
• Eight people in the world have as much
as 3.6 billion
Justice as Freedom: Libertarianism…

• The idea of the minimal state

– No Paternalism
– No morals legislation
– No income or wealth redistribution
• The libertarian philosophy does not map neatly onto the
political spectrum.
• Hayek’s and Friedman’s objections against market control
• Robert Nozick: “only a minimal state, limited to enforcing
contracts and protecting people against force, theft, and
fraud is justified. Any more extensive state violates persons’
rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is
unjustified.”
 Nozick’s Argument

• Rejection of patterned theories of justice

• Distributive justice depends on two requirements
– Justice in initial holdings
– Justice in transfer
• Wasim Akram’s Earnings
• Two problems with patterned theories
– Liberty upsets patterns
– Intervention violates Wasim Akram’s rights by taking his
earnings

• What is wrong with taxing Akram’s earnings?

 Nozick’s Argument…
• “Taxation of earnings from labour is on a par with forced labour.”

• “Seizing the results of someone’s labour is equivalent to seizing

hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities. If
people force you to do certain work, or unrewarded work, for a
certain period of time, they decide what you are to do and what
purposes your work is to serve apart from your decisions. This...
makes them a part-owner of you; it gives them a property right
in you.”

• The crux: Idea of self-ownership

 Objections
• Objections
– Taxation is not as bad as forced labour
– The poor need the money more
– Wasim Akram doesn’t play alone. He therefore owes a
debt to those who contribute to his success
– Wasim Akram is not really being taxed without his
consent
– Wasim Akram is lucky

• Do we own ourselves?