Political Science: Foundations of Political Theory Final Exam

What is Distributive Egalitarianism?

Equality as equal share of “Stuff” (money, well-being opportunities etc).

• Disagreement on HOLDING power.

What is Social Egalitarianism?

Equality as equal “Status” (The same social respect).

• The equality of relationships people have w/ each other.

• Eradicate hierarchy, oppression etc.

What is Leveling Down in terms of equality? Plus a Criticism.

• To take resources from one place and give it to NO ONE.

• Bringing down one party for the sake of equality.

• Criticism:

  • The situation after leveling down should be better but this is counterintuitive.

What is Relational Equality?

• Relating to Social Egalitarianism.

• All adult permanent members of society are equal citizens in terms of STATUS.

• There is NO equality of wealth, but there are NO massive disparities either.

What is Oppression according to I.M Young? (Forms of Opression) (5)

• Experience by groups and woven into structural institutions that govern us.

• Forms

  1. Exposed to violence to humiliate

  2. Marginalized

  3. Powerless to influence decisions

  4. Cultural imperialism

  5. Exploitation

• With these a society of EQUALS cannot exist.

What is Anderson’s take on Oppression and Equality?

• Says that Stigmatization is a way of demeaning groups to justify bad treatment.

• Justifies excluding people from positions

The Egalitarian Ethos: What are the Currencies of Equality? (4)

1. Resources

2. Welfare

3. Opportunities

4. Capabilities

Egalitarian Ethos: What are Resources? What are Personal and Impersonal resources?

• Things that we use to satisfy needs/wants. Equal outcome doesn’t matter as long as everyone starts with the same resources.

• Personal Resources: Health, Talents, Interests. (Non transferable- compensated for by more or less impersonal resources)

• Impersonal Resources: Wealth, Services, Property.

Explain what Dworkin’s Island Auction is.

• Dworkin: Equality of resources is satisfied “when everyone has an equal satisfactory share”

• Island Auction:

  • Divide of resources equally by allowing people to bid on them with an equal amount of Chips.

Critique of Equality of Resources

• Personal characteristics (ex. Disability), causes people to spend their resources VERY differently.

• Redistributing impersonal resources mitigates the effects of prior personal resource inequality.

Currency of Equality: What is the Envy Test?

Concept by Dworkin, where no one would trade their resources for another.

• The Envy Test is satisfied through an auction process.

• Ambition Sensitive and Endowment Insensitive

  • Person’s tastes, preferences and plans (personal resources) should NOT influence impersonal resource distribution.

What is the solution to endowment-sensitivity? (Insurance Markey Policy)

• Compensate people with fewer personal resources.

• Insurance Market Policy:

  • Insure themselves against risk of being born disadvantaged.

  • How much would people pay? —→ Quantifies the impact of being disadvantaged.

  • Basis for a fair compensation policy.

  • In reality this comes from TAXATION, not insurance

What is Luck Egalitarianism? And what are the 2 Schools of thought?

• The process by which the effects of LUCK are NEUTRALIZED

  1. People should be compensated for undeserved bad luck

  2. Compensation should come from the part of other people’s good luck that is underserved.

What are the different types of luck according to Dworkin? (2)

1. Brute Luck: Good/Bad luck that is completely RANDOM

2. Option Luck: Good/Bad luck that is taken on by a person (Ex. buying a stock)

   • Only brute luck is compensated.

What are the criticisms of Luck Egalitarianism? (4)

1. We don’t deserve the products of our natural talent or hard work.

2. Harsh on victims of bad option luck

3. Wrongly focuses on equal STUFF rather than equal respect.

4. ANDERSON: Demeaning and devaluing those that are unlucky (Pity)

What is Equality of Welfare?

Welfare: Happiness or preference- satisfaction

• Everyone should be equally happy, inequality of wealth affects happiness.

What are the issues with Equality of Welfare? (2)

1. Adaptive Preferences:

   • People change their desires in light of circumstance

2. Expensive Tastes:

   • In order to have equal welfare money more money has to be given people with expensive taste.

   • Cohen: Should not finance expensive taste’s people chose to develop

   • Anderson: Any CHOICE made does not need to be compensated.

What are the types of Equality of Opportunity? (3)

1. Minimal: No formal limits on people’s opportunities.

2. Conventional: Life prospects should depend on the ability and work (not social background), become the best person for the job.

3. Radical: Life prospects should only depend on things that you CHOOSE

What is Sufficientarianism?

• What matters in resource distribution is that everyone has ENOUGH, Not that some have more than others.

• Morally good for as many people as possible to be above the threshold required for a good life.

• Justifies transfer of resources from the better off to the worse off.

What are the types of Sufficientarianism? (2)

1. Strict:

   • Always prioritize brining people to the threshold

   • No obligations to those above the threshold

2. Moderate:

   • Priority to those the furthest from the threshold.

   • Disagreement about the obligations to those above the threshold.

   • Lexical (Moral) Priority to those below the threshold.

What are the Pros of Sufficientarianism? (3)

1. Fits our intuition (that people should live good lives)

2. Not susceptible to the leveling-down objection.

3. Avoids the objections of luck egalitarianism.

Cons of Sufficientariansm? (1)

• Where is the threshold? Its completely arbitrarily.

Justice: Plato’s History of Justice (Parts of the Soul and City)

• Response to the Sophists: “Justice is the advantage of the party”

• Souls/Cities are divided into three Parts:

  1. Reason- Wisdom Guardians

  2. Spirit- Courage Soldiers

  3. Appetite- Satisfaction Producers

  • If one part of the city/soul dominates all else fails.

  • JUSTICE is when all THREE parts are in BALANCE.

What is the Lesson of Plato’s Ring of Gyges?

• The only reason we act just is because we are being watched.

Justice: Aristotle’s History of Justice

• Justice is what is lawful and fair:

  • Conducive to the common good.

  • Citizens should obey the law to be JUST

Types of Justice according to Aristotle. (2)

1. Distributive Justice: Dividing benefits and burdens fairly

2. Corrective Justice: Restore a fair balance where it has been lost.

Ultimately. Justice is the MEAN between 2 extremes (too much or too little)

Justice: Immanuel Kant’s Thoughts

• We use REASON to determine what is right/wrong

• Justice, respecting the rights of other, individuals have moral and legal rights against is, justice achieved when we fulfill our obligations towards others (respect inherent dignity)

What is Kant’s Categorical Imperative?

• We should try impose others to do only what we could reasonably will to be UNIVERSAL LAW.

  • Can it reasonably be willed to be universal law?

What are the Conditions to Kant’s Categorical Imperative/Conception of Justice? (3)

1. Interpersonal Behaviors: Things that will others, we CANNOT govern things that only regard us.

2. Related to action and not just wishes, (A physical Act).

3. Intended Consequences don’t matter- morality depends on if the action follows a moral law.

Sum up Plato, Aristotle and Kant’s Ideas

• Plato: To have a well ordered soul

• Aristotle: Moral virtue is necessary for human flourishing

• Kant: It’s the right thing to do and our duty as a rational agents is to do what’s right - One Universal Right

What is the Concept of Justice?

• Giving people what is owed to them; not giving people what isn’t owed

What are the claims of Utilitarianism? (2)

1. Descriptive Claim: We should improve or worsen social affairs as we increase or decrease the sum of well-being (utility)

2. Normative: We should strive to maximize utility

What is utility? What are the types of utility?

• What is good for a person or makes their life go well.

  1. Pleasure

  2. Preference/ Desire Satisfaction

What is Pleasure (Hedonism) utility? + Critique

• Pleasure increases your utility.

  1. Some unpleasant things are good for us. (ex going to the dentist)

  2. Some pleasant things aren’t good for us (ex. being w/ a cheating partner)

     Critique:

     • Some neither pleasant/nor unpleasant things are good for us. (ex. Telling the truth)

What is Preference/desire satisfaction utility? + Critique

1. Avoids some pitfalls associated w/ hedonism

2. Addresses public policy issues in a transparent/efficient way.

   Critique:

   • People can be mistaken about what they desire. (ex. wanting to eat a meal that is poisoned)

Explain Utilitarianism as a Theory of Justice. (3)

1. Public policies should be chosen and designed to maximize utility.

2. Must compare the likely outcomes of a policy against all other alternatives.

3. Some will gain and some will lose - gains and losses justified by CUMULATIVE impact.

What are the attractive features of utilitarianism as a theory of Justice? (2)

1. Impartial Perspective: A unit of utility for one person is the same for others.

2. Weigh people’s Utility Equally: We cannot discount people because they are marginalized.

What are the Un-attractive features of Utilitarianism as a theory of Justice? (3)

1. May require unacceptable sacrifices: ex. TV falls on Joe During Broadcasting World Cup Final.

2. Requires that sometimes we ought to be Unjust: ex. Prevent riots only by framing and executing an innocent.

3. May have negative impacts on perpetual minority groups: ex. policy to remove all refugee funding.

Who is John Rawls?

• Revived political theory from death.

• Revived the idea of the social contract.

  • Imaginary Choice Situation: OG Position

  • Principles of justice to regulate the basic structure of Government.

What is Rawls’ idea of the Original Position?

• Belief that people deliberate and agree upon roles of government and PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE.

• The Question to Measure Justice: What would rational people living in the real world consent to under appropriate circumstances?

Original Position: What is the Veil of Ignorance? (What do they know and not know?)

• Forces people to adopt an impartial perspective and focus on morally relevant consideration by:

  1. Eliminating their knowledge of their place in society (Personal and Social Characteristics)

  2. Letting them know the

     1. Human Nature and Social Institutions of the society.

     2. Rational Heads of Households, Pursue a life of their own.

     3. Committed to a conception of the good.

     4. Society has moderate scarcity and is closed.

     5. Limited interest in others.

What are the conclusions on the Original Position?

1. Each participant will want to max out their share of goods.

2. Parties will be averse to taking risks.

What are the choices? (4)

1. Utilitarianism

2. Egalitarianism

3. Sufficientarianism

4. Maximin

Why does Rawls say to choose Maximin?

• We should maximize the minimum position when uncertain. (Remember they don’t want to take risks)

What principle(s) should/do they NOT choose?

Utilitarianism: The worst can be VERY bad, the gains of some can offset the costs of others. (ex. Slave society)

What principles DO they choose? (Order them Lexically) (3)

1. Equal Liberties Principles: everyone has equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties.

   Satisfy social-econ inequalities

2. Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle: They are attached to offices and positions to ALL.

3. Difference Principle: They must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

Explain the Equal Liberties Principle.

• Basic Liberties: freedom of thought, association etc and rights that are covered by the rule of law.

• LEXICAL PRIORITY meaning liberties cannot be sacrificed for utility.

Explain the Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle (4)

1. Compensates for social Disadvantage.

2. Aims to guarantee those with the same natural abilities have an equal prospect of success, regardless of social circumstances.

3. Might require limits on wealth accumulation.

4. Combined w/ Difference Principle, limits inequities of wealth - requiring prioritization of least advantaged.

Explain the Difference Principle

• Compensate for Natural Disadvantages.

• Inequalities are permissible when they maximize the position of the least advantaged.

  • Ex. A Doctor working more hours for extra more money.

  • If inequities do NOT benefit the least advantaged, they’re NOT ALLOWED.

Why would they choose these principles?

1. Equal Liberty Principle: Freedom is necessary in pursuing life plans

2. Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle: Parties don’t know what group(s) they will be part of an want to max their chances of success.

3. Difference Principle: Parties don’t know whether they will be least advantaged or not.

What is G.A Cohen’s Socialist Critique?

• He disagrees with Rawls’ idea that Justice is what people agree to.

• He believes Justice is TRASCENDENT of if should or can achieve it or not.

  • Feasibility is unrelated to Justice.

• Justice is not about what, frankly flawed PEOPLE, would agree to.

What is G.A Cohen’s Objections to the Difference Principle?

• Rawls’ Assumption is that productive people would be unwilling to be as productive if they WEREN’T ALLOWED TO BETTER others.

• Cohen questions why the inequality in talent needs to be necessary to benefit the worst off? —→ It reflects a lack of egalitarian commitment.

  • If inequality IS necessary, it is ONLY because they would be UNWILLING to be as productive as much as they are it they WEREN’T ABLE to be BETTER than others.

What is Cohen’s 1st ‘But’?

• Inequality isn’t STRICTLY necessary to make the worst off better off.

  • It is only necessary because the productive aren’t willing to act otherwise.

  • It is their choice to make the inequality necessary.

What Is Cohen’s 2nd ‘But’?

• Productive people act this way because they reject the Difference Principle (Inequality is justified if it benefits worst off).

Objection to the DP (4).

1. Well-off people can improve the lot of the worse off without increasing inequality (the incentive). Ex. People can always work harder for free.

2. It is the well-off who make incentives necessary

3. People who are motivated by the concern of the worst off (DP) don’t need incentives to produce more.

4. Therefore they don’t really affirm DP.

What is Cohen’s Egalitarian Ethos?

• For implementation of DP:

  1. High potential earners should cease from using the advantages awarded to them through their high bargaining power.

  2. Set of attitudes whose effects is to assign priority to the interests of the worst off.

  3. People’s personal, individual choices would be motivated by DP and not just the BASIC STRUCTURE.

What is the Basic Structure? + Types (2)

• Rawls says that the principles of justice only applies to the basic structure of society not citizen choices —→ Institutions Not People in Private capacity.

• Narrow Basic Structure: Coercive mechanisms by the states, like laws and tax. —→ Citizens self maximize under capitalist regime that implements a tax system that benefits the worst off.

• Wide Basic Structure: All major structures that have profound impacts on equality like families. Personal decisions under DP, moves from institutions to personal things.

What does Carole Pateman say about Rawls’ Original Position?

• Rawls’ OP confirm ‘our’ existing institutions including patriarchy.

• Does so by claiming parties:

  1. Have descendants they’re concerned about

  2. Are heads of families.

• He takes for granted sexual differences, children and families.

• Parties will assume their sex.

What does Jane Enflish say about Rawls’ Original Position?

• “Heads of households”, makes the family opaque to justice.

• Take that, for efficiency all child-bearers are universally appointed child rearers:

  • Good for Heads of Households.

  • Not fair for some individuals in the family. (Violates Freedom of Equal Opportunity)

  • Children born into these families would be socialized on the division and wouldn’t develop a PROPER MEANING of JUSTICE.

What does Susan Moller Okin say about Rawls’ Original Position?

• Rawls’ doesn’t require families to follow the principles of justice even though he treats them as INTEGRAL to society structure.

• Families are where a sense of justice is developed so they need to be internally just.

What does Okin say about applying Rawls’ theory?

• Requires radical social change.

• Society needs to regard sex with the same moral relevance as eye color.

• To ensure Women’s Equality: Domestic Labor must be divided equally between the 2.

  • Women who stayed home, would have a legal entitlement to the income that come’s into the home.

What is Rawls’ response to the Feminist Critique?

• Continue to exempt family from the theory of Justice.

  • Argued trad distribution was voluntary.

• Fails to recognize “voluntary choice” is problematic if there are no other alternatives.

• Affirmed the public/private distinction.

What does Elizabeth Anderson say about Rawls’ Original Position?

• Rawls’ theory promotes IDEAL NORMS (ex. colorblindness) under non-ideal conditions.

  • We need race specific policies, not universal ones.

• It doesn’t recognize historical injustice.

What does Tommie Shelby say about the Original Position?

• The Fair Equality of Opportunity can be used in well-ordered society w/ basic liberties.

• NOW, unequal distribution can be explained by the cumulative impact of past injustices.

What does Charles Mill say about Rawls’ Original Position?

1. Rawls didn’t apply Fair Equality of Opportunity to race. BUT he explicitly said no one would put forth racist in the OP (VOI).

2. A well-ordered society regulated by Rawls’ principles will NOT have structured racial subordination. —→ Doesn’t tell use how to get there.

   • A Radical Revision of the Theory is needed.

What is Ideal Theory?

• The way (white) political theorists exclude race/racial justice. Rawls used this in the OG Position.

  1. Corrective measures are unnecessary where no race has been discriminated against.

  2. Perfectly JUST society would be race-less - so we don’t need to worry about racial injustice.

     • Race ends up completely marginalized.

What is the Racial Contract?

• Concerned w/ how the ideals of Enlightenment (Free and equal people) coincided with the brutality of racial slavery.

  • Racial injustice is built into the social contract

Explain Mill’s “Racial Liberalism”.

• Racial Liberalism:

  • Equality amongst white men only.

  • Racism is BUILT IN. - inferior treatment was acceptable under liberal norms because they were less than FULL persons.

What are Mill’s Claims about the Social Contract? (5)

1. Proponents (Founders of Social Contract), held racist attitudes which taint the intellectual framework.

2. Embodies racist assumptions so theories overlook racial domination.

3. Embodies ‘Whiteness’ priveldge of the group.

4. Obscure racist practices, renders groups invisible.

5. Acknowledges racist practices but sees them as failures of moral duties not structurally oppressive.

Explain the Social Contract as a Domination Contract.

• The existing Social Contract was made by and through white people —→ Shaped modern World.

  • Domination Contract captures realities of the Modern State.

What is Mill’s revisions of the OP?

• Brings attention to NON-IDEAL history.

• THE NEW OG POSITION:

  • Don’t know their racial identities.

  • DO KNOW their society’s history of racial exploitation.

• Parties will agree to racial reoperations to correct injustice.

What changes should be made to systems to include race in the OP? (3)

1. End racially unequal citizenship

2. End racial exploitation

3. End racial disrespect

What is Central to Nozick’s Entitlement Theory? (4)

• Rights

  1. Moral Rights (Not Legal Ones)

  2. Not ‘Welfare Rights (Positive Rights),

  3. Right to non-interference (Negative Rights) - ex. People shouldn’t endanger you.

  4. Rights are inviolable- the cannot be overridden by other things that max out utility - (Side Constraints, limit what others may do to you)

What is Nozick’s Critique of Rawls?

• Rawls’ theory allows for trade offs in order to Max Utility - Individuals as an end to a mean.

• Condemns Rawls’ Difference Principle- Nozick says only a theory of HIS conception of rights would incorporate belief that people should NOT be used to achieve other’s ends.

Taxation is Forced Labor: Nozick vs Rawls.

Nozick:

• Believes that each person is the morally rightful owner of his person and powers and each is free to use those powers as he wishes (within reason- no harm)

• Self ownership, also rules out redistribution Tax because tax is a forced transfer. —→ Violates Self ownership.

What are the 3 Principles of Distribution?

1. Historical: Justice from the perspective of how distribution came about. Just way = Just Result.

2. End- Result: What the actual distribution is now.

3. Patterned: “to each according to X” distribution according to a Criteria.

What is Entitlement Theory? (3)

• Distribution is just if everyone is entitled to their property as under the distribution.

• How to become Entitled:

  1. Justice in Acquisition

  2. Justice in Transfer

  3. Justice in Rectification

What is Justice in Acquisition? (4)

• How people can have entitlement over INITIAL RESOURCES.

• Before Transfers.

  1. The world is unowned.

  2. People own themselves.

  3. One has the right to Appropriate things by mixing LABOUR.

  4. Don’t worsen others’ situations, - leave enough and as good for others.

What are Nozick’s Ideas on Justice in Acquisition? (Nozick’s Proviso)

• All appropriations contingent on not making others worse off than they would have been if the world remained unowned.

• Nozick’s Case:

  1. Being UNABLE, to acquire something doesn’t make it so that you are unable to USE it.

     • ex. Not having a tree doesn’t make it so that you can’t use wood. You can appropriate if purchased.

  2. Allowing appropriation potentially benefits everyone.

     • Includes those who haven’t appropriated anything for themselves.

What is Justice in Transfer?

• Voluntary exchanges preserve justice - ex. selling vs stealing.

• Substantial inequalities of wealth CAN be JUST if they arise from voluntary transfers.

• Ex. Lebron Distribution 1 and Distribution 2.

• If any steps in the transfer chain involves force, fraud, or theft — Subsequent transfers are ILLEGETIMATE.

Justice as Transfer: Liberty Upsets Patterns?

• No patterned justice principle can be achieved without continuous state interference.

• Liberty Over Equality:

  • If the pattern was something different, we wouldn’t care if liberty upset the pattern. —→ We would accept voluntary exchanges OR periodic redistribution.

What is Rawls’ Response to Justice as Transfer?

• What it means to be entitled to a holding is defined by the public system (taxation) —→ - Citizens know, understand and uphold the system of patterned redistribution.

• No one is prevented from doing something, all parties engage with full knowledge that a portion will be REDISTRIBUTED for the principles of justice.

What is Rectificatory Justice?

• People acquire property through unjust means. Still happens through welfare, public education etc.

• Principle of Rectification:

  • Redistribution of resources that were acquired through unjust means if they ended up WORSE OFF.

  • Compare ideal society holdings vs actual holdings in society.

What is Nozick’s solution to Rectificatory Justice?

• We ought to organize society to maximize the position of whatever group ends up the least well-off in society.

  • Likely to contain dependents of victims.

• Requires extensive state in the short term.

What are the Critiques of Nozick’s Libertarianism and Justice as Entitlement?

• Brian Barry, 10 per cent of the population would starve and suffer by eliminating payments through the state (tax).

• People would be at the mercy of private charity given on a whim.

• Nozick CANNOT propose imposing a minimum threshold or standard taxation —→ Goes against fundamental view.

What is Justice as Desert? (Plus Nozick’s Arguments 2)

• belief that people should receives what they deserve, based on their moral character and actions.

• Nozick does not believe that people deserve or don’t deserve money because it would go along with a patterned distribution.

  • Markets are essential to individual freedom. (Forced distribution violates freedom)

  • Markets give people what the deserve (Justice as Desert).

What is Rawls’ view on Justice as Desert?

• He doesn’t think those with special abilities that command a high market price deserves the money because luck plays too great a role.

• Both agree that social justice is NOT about people getting what they do because they deserve it.

What is the Site of Justice?

• Things that are considered matters of justice. Which objects are appropriately evaluated by principles of justice.

• Utilitarianism: Most expansive view, same moral principles apply to ALL social domains.

Utilitarianism: All Social Domains Pros (1) and Cons (2)

Pro

• Encourages us to think about our decisions on others.

Cons

1. May require us to set aside our own projects and interests.

2. A society of do-gooders that will do anything to maximize utility may (paradoxically) have less utility.

   • Rarely settle on personal desires.

   • Waste time calculating utility demands

   • Lack coordination for net Positives.

Site of Justice: Nozick’s Take

Individual Rights:

• Justice is concerned only concerned w/ respecting rights:

  • Refrain from interference.

• A just society can be Good OR Bad.

Site of Justice: Rawls’ Take

The Basic Structure:

• Subject of Justice is the basic Structure of Society.

  • The components as the constitution and the principle economic and social arrangement.

What is Communitarianism?

• Justice only has primacy in certain circumstances:

  • Scarcity of resources.

  • Limited altruism.

What are Care Ethics?

• Men and women enter the moral domain differently.

• Ethics of care focus on the demands of:

  • Human Connections

  • Relationships

  • Empathy and Nurturing

Jeremy Waldron’s Take

• Justice cannot be the first virtue of politics because it can’t be attained w/o securing political order and stability first.