You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
How a society's goods should be shared, and what those who have plenty owe to those who have little, are among the oldest questions in ethics and the most urgent in a world of vast and visible inequality. This enrichment lesson approaches them through the theory of distributive justice — the principles by which benefits and burdens are allocated across a society — and through the question of global obligation to the distant poor. Its spine is the great twentieth-century dispute between John Rawls's egalitarian liberalism and Robert Nozick's libertarian entitlement theory, set beside Peter Singer's demanding argument for famine relief and the Christian traditions — liberation theology and Catholic social teaching — that read wealth and poverty as a matter of faith. The aim, as throughout applied ethics, is to watch each position generate and defend a verdict and to find where it is most exposed.
It helps to separate two questions that are easily run together. The first is domestic distributive justice: within a single society, what distribution of income, wealth and opportunity is just — equality, desert, need, or whatever results from free exchange? The second is global beneficence: across borders, what do the affluent owe to the world's poor, and is failing to give as bad as actively harming? Rawls and Nozick are the principals in the first debate; Singer is the principal in the second. The religious traditions speak to both, but characteristically reframe the question from one of entitlement to one of solidarity, gift and the proper place of possessions in a life oriented to God.
Key term: Distributive justice — the branch of justice concerned with the fair allocation of benefits and burdens (income, wealth, opportunity, rights) across the members of a society.
John Rawls (1921–2002), in A Theory of Justice (1971), produced the most influential modern account of distributive justice. His method is the thought experiment of the original position: imagine rational, self-interested agents choosing the basic principles for their society from behind a veil of ignorance, ignorant of their own place in it — their class, talents, gender, race, conception of the good, even their generation. Stripped of the knowledge that would let them rig the rules in their own favour, and reasoning prudently under uncertainty, such agents will (Rawls argues) choose principles that are fair to all because they could turn out to be anyone.
Key term: Veil of ignorance — Rawls's device for modelling impartiality: principles of justice are those that would be chosen by rational agents who do not know their own position, talents or interests in the society they are designing.
Key term: Original position — Rawls's hypothetical choice situation in which free and equal rational agents, placed behind the veil of ignorance, select the principles that will govern the basic structure of their society.
From the original position Rawls derives two principles, in strict priority order. The first, the liberty principle, gives each person an equal claim to the most extensive scheme of basic liberties (conscience, speech, the vote, the rule of law) compatible with the same for all; these may never be traded away for economic gain. The second governs social and economic inequalities, and has two parts: fair equality of opportunity (positions must be genuinely open to all), and the famous difference principle — inequalities are just only insofar as they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. Rawls's underlying thought is that the distribution of natural talents and social starting-points is a "natural lottery", morally arbitrary, something no one deserves; a just society therefore treats the talents of the gifted as a kind of common asset, permitting the inequalities that flow from them only where allowing the able to prosper also, through the incentives and productivity they generate, lifts the floor beneath the worst-off. Equality is the default; inequality must earn its keep by helping those at the bottom.
Key term: Difference principle — Rawls's second principle of justice: social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they are arranged to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
The difference principle is radical in implication without requiring strict equality. It condemns extreme wealth alongside extreme poverty unless the wealth can be shown actually to improve the position of the poorest (through, say, taxation, investment and the productivity that incentives unlock); it makes the test of an economic arrangement not its total output, nor its rewarding of desert, but its effect on those with least.
Rawls's construction faces objections from several directions, and a strong answer can deploy them. Some critics challenge the rationality of the choice: behind the veil, Rawls assumes agents reason by maximin — choosing the option whose worst outcome is least bad, as if they might end up at the very bottom. But a gambler behind the veil might rationally accept a small risk of poverty for a large chance of great wealth, in which case the agents need not choose the difference principle at all; Rawls's egalitarian conclusion may be smuggled in through a conservative assumption about risk. Communitarian critics such as Michael Sandel object that the veil of ignorance presupposes an implausible "unencumbered self" — a chooser stripped of the very attachments, communities and conceptions of the good that actually constitute moral identity — so that the principles chosen by such abstract agents may have little authority over real, situated people. And, as Nozick will press, treating the distribution of talents as a "common asset" is said to violate the separateness of persons. Rawls's defenders reply that maximin is rational precisely because what is at stake — one's basic life-prospects, under conditions of profound uncertainty and no second chance — is not the kind of thing a reasonable person gambles with, and that the veil models fairness rather than describing real psychology.
Robert Nozick (1938–2002), in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), mounted the most powerful libertarian reply. Nozick rejects "patterned" and "end-state" theories of justice — theories (like Rawls's) that judge a distribution by whether it matches some favoured shape (equality, the greatest benefit to the worst-off). Justice in holdings, he argues, is purely historical: a distribution is just if it arose by just steps, whatever shape it happens to have. His entitlement theory has three principles: justice in acquisition (how unowned things may first be justly acquired), justice in transfer (holdings justly acquired may be justly transferred by voluntary exchange or gift), and rectification (past injustices in acquisition or transfer must be put right). If your holdings trace back through a chain of just transfers to a just original acquisition, they are yours by right, and no one — including the state — may take them merely to produce a more pleasing pattern.
Key term: Entitlement theory — Nozick's historical account of justice in holdings: a distribution is just if it results from just acquisition and just (voluntary) transfer, regardless of the overall pattern it produces.
Nozick's sharpest weapon against patterned theories is the Wilt Chamberlain argument. Begin from any distribution you regard as perfectly just — call it D1, an equal share for everyone. Now suppose a million fans each freely choose to drop twenty-five cents into a box to watch the basketball star play; he ends the season vastly richer than everyone else, yielding a new distribution D2. If D1 was just, and each transfer was voluntary, how can D2 be unjust? No one was wronged; everyone chose. Yet D2 violates the original pattern. Nozick's conclusion is that "liberty upsets patterns": to maintain any favoured distribution, the state would have to forbid the free exchanges between consenting adults that continually disturb it, which means patterned justice is incompatible with liberty. He presses the point further with the claim that "taxation of earnings from labour is on a par with forced labour", since to seize the fruits of my hours of work is to commandeer those hours — a deliberately provocative argument that redistribution conscripts the taxpayer. Nozick does build in one constraint on original acquisition, a version of the Lockean proviso: one may appropriate previously unowned resources only where "enough and as good" is left for others, or at least where no one is made worse off than they would have been under common use. Critics seize on this, arguing that in a finite and largely already-owned world the proviso is rarely satisfied — the propertyless are plainly worse off than under an unenclosed commons — so that even Nozick's own theory, taken seriously, may undercut the legitimacy of much existing property and reopen the door to redistribution he sought to close.
| Rawls (justice as fairness) | Nozick (entitlement theory) | |
|---|---|---|
| Type of theory | Patterned / end-state: judge the distribution by its shape (benefit to worst-off) | Historical: judge by how the distribution arose |
| Core principle | Difference principle: inequality must benefit the least advantaged | Just acquisition + just transfer = just holdings |
| View of talents | A morally arbitrary "natural lottery"; a common asset | Yours; you are entitled to what your talents justly produce |
| Role of the state | Active redistribution to satisfy the difference principle | Minimal "night-watchman" state; redistribution is unjust |
| Chief strength | Protects the vulnerable; models impartiality | Takes liberty and consent seriously; respects desert |
| Chief weakness | Why should the talented accept being a "common asset"? | Ignores unjust starting-points; "just acquisition" is hazy |
The two thinkers expose each other's pressure points. Against Nozick, Rawlsians object that the entitlement theory takes the present chain of transfers as just while ignoring how poisoned its origins usually are — almost all real holdings trace back through conquest, slavery, fraud and dispossession, so that Nozick's own principle of rectification, taken seriously, might license redistribution as sweeping as anything Rawls proposes; and that "voluntary" exchange between grossly unequal parties (the starving labourer "freely" accepting a pittance) is hollow. Against Rawls, Nozickians object that treating persons' talents as a "common asset" fails to respect the separateness of persons — it uses the able for the sake of the badly-off, conscripting their gifts — and that the difference principle ignores desert, rewarding distribution by need rather than by contribution. Where one stands largely determines one's whole politics of taxation and welfare.
Peter Singer's essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" (1972), written in response to the Bengal famine, shifts the question from how a society shares its goods to what the affluent owe the distant poor — and reaches a conclusion far more demanding than common-sense morality allows. His argument is deceptively simple. (1) Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad. (2) If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. (3) By donating to effective aid we can prevent such suffering without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance (the cost to us — a meal out, a new shirt — is trivial against a life). Therefore (4) we ought to donate, and to keep donating up to the point at which giving more would cost us something of comparable moral worth.
Key term: The drowning-child analogy — Singer's illustration: if you would ruin an expensive suit to save a child drowning in a shallow pond, then distance and the presence of other potential helpers cannot explain why you may instead spend that money on luxuries while distant children die of preventable causes.
Singer drives the principle home with the drowning-child analogy. If you pass a shallow pond and see a small child drowning, you are surely obliged to wade in and save her, even though it ruins your expensive clothes; the cost to you is trivial against her life. But, Singer argues, neither physical distance nor the fact that others could help but are not makes any moral difference: a child dying of a preventable disease ten thousand miles away has exactly the same claim on you as the child in the pond, and the fact that millions of others are also failing to help does not lessen your duty — it multiplies the tragedy. The discomforting upshot is that the comfortable lifestyles of the affluent, who spend on luxuries money that could save lives, are not morally permissible. Singer's argument is admired for its rigour and resented for its severity; the standard reply is that it is too demanding — that a morality which permits no luxuries and treats the failure to give as the moral equivalent of letting a child drown asks more than human beings can sustain, blurs the line between duty and supererogation (the saintly act that goes beyond duty), and ignores the special obligations we have to those near to us. Singer's defenders answer that the demandingness is a feature, not a bug: our intuition that we may keep our luxuries is precisely the self-serving prejudice the argument exposes, and even his weaker formulation — give until you would sacrifice something morally significant — still requires far more than most people do.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.