Justice: Who Deserves What, and Why
Arguments about tax, inheritance, university places and healthcare are all arguments about what people are owed and on what grounds: need, effort, contribution, or simply being a person. Asking what rules you would pick without knowing your own position is one honest way in.
What a learner can do afterwards
- State three different bases for distributing something scarce and give a case where each seems right
- Explain what changes when you have to choose the rules before knowing which position you will hold
- Take a policy and explain which basis of justice its stated rationale supports, without assuming one feature reveals its whole theory
1 · Read
Justice asks what people are owed and why. Need, effort and equal shares are three possible bases for sharing. Food aid can follow need, a work prize can recognise effort, and a shared snack can be divided equally. The purpose and circumstances help us judge which basis fits. Desert means what someone deserves. Effort is one proposed basis of desert, not its whole meaning.
John Rawls asks us to choose society's principles without knowing our income, talents or social position. This imagined veil of ignorance blocks tailoring rules to an advantage we know is ours. People can still care about their prospects. Rawls argues that this restriction supports fair agreement. It does not guarantee that everyone outside the thought experiment will agree with every principle.
Rawls gives equal basic liberties priority. He also requires fair equality of opportunity: similar talent and motivation should bring similar prospects, whatever a person's social background. Permission to apply alone is not enough. Subject to these requirements, the difference principle calls for the feasible social and economic arrangement giving the greatest benefit to the least advantaged. Any improvement over one alternative is not enough if another would benefit them more.
For a simplified comparison, suppose plans A, B and C are feasible and protect basic liberties and fair opportunity. All other relevant features are comparable. The least advantaged receive 6, 8 and 7 resource units respectively. The difference principle favours B in this comparison: it gives that group the most. A larger total for everyone combined would not alone settle this question.
Compare the least advantaged under each plan. These are fictional resource units, not measurements of fairness.
Read a policy's stated reason. Meals targeted at pupils needing food support can express need; universal meals may serve several aims. A fixed fine sets the same money penalty for the same offence, but may burden incomes differently. Tutoring assigned by assessed learning needs can express need while seeking fair opportunity. One feature rarely reveals a policy's whole theory. Ask what is being made equal.
When resources have different purposes, test each allocation rule separately. A club might reward sustained effort with a prize but divide shared materials equally. Working longer could support the prize without supporting a larger share of materials. Equal shares of materials also do not require sharing every award equally. Give a reason for each allocation instead of carrying one rule over to every resource.
Need, effort and equal shares offer different reasons. Rawls combines basic liberties, fair opportunity and the greatest benefit to the least advantaged.
This lesson, quiz and flashcards were written for this dataset. Business Ethics and Introduction to Philosophy informed the concept checks. The allocation plans and club example are fictional.
The readings and flashcards were written for this dataset. The linked talk is The lost art of democratic debate - Michael Sandel.
More to read
What does a reward recognise?
A club wants to recognise its members' work. One proposal rewards the most hours spent helping. Another rewards the largest useful contribution. These rules can select different people: someone may work for many hours while someone else completes a useful task quickly.
Both proposals might be defended through desert, meaning what someone deserves. They disagree about what makes a reward deserved. Effort and contribution are therefore related ideas, not identical ones.
The purpose of the award matters. A prize created to recognise persistence needs a different argument from payment for a completed service. Unequal opportunities may also affect what people can achieve.
State the proposed basis before judging the allocation. Then ask whether it fits the purpose and whether relevant circumstances have been considered. Calling an award deserved does not yet explain why.
An improvement is not the whole comparison
Suppose a proposed economic arrangement would improve the prospects of the least advantaged compared with the present arrangement. That is relevant to Rawls's difference principle, but the comparison is unfinished.
Ask whether another feasible arrangement would improve their prospects more. A policy cannot claim to meet the principle merely because it gives this group some benefit while others receive much larger gains.
The principle also belongs within a theory that protects equal basic liberties and fair equality of opportunity. Increasing resources cannot by itself excuse violating those requirements. Fair opportunity concerns people's prospects across social backgrounds, not only an open application form.
The veil of ignorance explains how Rawls asks us to consider principles without knowing our own place. It blocks appeals to a personal advantage we know we possess. It does not remove all concern for our prospects or prove that actual people will unanimously endorse the theory.
Equal in what respect?
A policy can make one thing equal while leaving another unequal. A fixed fine sets the same money amount for the same offence. That amount can take a larger share of one person's income than another's. An income-related fine tries to address a different comparison.
The word equal therefore needs an object: equal amounts, equal burdens, equal rights or fair opportunities. These concerns can overlap without being interchangeable.
A school meal programme may also serve several aims. Providing meals to everyone could address food needs, avoid identifying particular recipients or support participation in school. Universal provision does not alone reveal which reason its authors give.
When examining a policy, read its stated rationale and check how its rule works. Describe the feature your evidence supports. One allocation rule rarely tells you everything its supporters believe about justice.
Explore more
2 · Watch
Take it off screen
Where it sits
Learn first
Optional connections
This opens up
8 questions wait behind this lesson, each with its answer explained. Every answer feeds the sky: stars light as they are learned, and dim when it is time to come back.