Intro to Economic Justice Midterm

what are the three economic approaches

traditional, command, and democratic

intrinsic goods

good in and of themselves; hard to explain why they're good (ex. pleasure)

instrumental goods

good for what they get you (ex. money)

Locke's Labor Theory of Value

if you put in sweat equity into something, it can become yours (only in a state of nature and if you do not steal from someone else)

tragedy of the commons

everyone takes more than their share to avoid other people taking more than their share

utilitarianism

aims for the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people; the morally right act or policy is that which produces the greatest happiness for the members of society

what are the three major normative ethical theories

utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue theory

who was the founder of utilitarianism

J.S. Mill

what does utilitarianism evaluate

what's pleasurable; outcomes and consequences

deontology

the study of duty

who was the founder of deontology

Kant

what does deontology evaluate

what can be universalized (if everyone did it the world wouldn't be in shambles)

who was the founder of virtue theory

Aristotle

what does virtue theory evaluate

what's the goal/aim/purpose; avoid corruption

what are major objections to utilitarianism

it's hard to calculate if the good outweighs the harm because different values/happiness are different for different people (everyone has a bias that needs to be removed); majority prejudices should not be counted evenly with others; you live for people not yourself; informed vs uninformed preferences

night watchman

if everything goes well, they do nothing but only jump in when necessary

what does Hobbes think of people naturally, and in terms of government

cynicism; enforcer/strong man

what does Locke think of people naturally, and in terms of government

night watchman; checks and balances

what does Rousseau think of people naturally, and in terms of government

idealism; society can corrupt the government

moral theory

how society vs individuals should operate

advantages of utilitarianism

it's easier to motivate (everyone wants happiness and welfare), consequentialism [meant to be testable; can we check it (where's the harm?)]

what is the purpose of moral theory

give an account of human welfare or utility and how to maximize utility by giving equal weight to each person

welfare hedonism

the experience or sensation of pleasure is the highest human good

what's the major objection to welfare hedonism

pleasure is not the highest good (ex. the experience machine); there are goods that do not reduce to pleasure or avoiding pain

paradox of pleasure

you'll always want more/better which has the opposite effect (ex. you'll always think you'll be able to have MORE fun than you're currently having, which may upset you because you're not having enough fun)

Non-hedonistic mental-state utility

different kinds of mental experiences are valuable and we should promote a range of mental states

objections to non-hedonistic mental-state utility

this doesn't escape the experience machine ; basically a more complicated version of welfare hedonism

preference satisfaction

increasing people's utility means satisfying their preferences, whatever they are

objections to preference satisfaction

sometimes people's preferences are bad (ex. racists), we do not know enough to make informed preferences (ex. everyone wants pizza but don't know that it's poisoned. if we knew it was poisoned, we'd have a different preference), things get backwards (we should want to do the right thing because it's right not because it maximizes our preference), and we have adaptive preferences

rational informed preferences

welfare's identical to the satisfaction of rational or informed preferences

objections to rational informed preferences

extremely difficult to put into practice, who is the ideally rational agent, does it get rid of adaptive preference?

Rule Utilitarianism

The morally right action is the one that, if followed as a general rule, would maximize utility (Mill's view)

Act Utilitarianism

the morally right action is the one that directly maximizes welfare

what are the general agreements of utilitarianism

1. dying of a preventable situation is very bad

2. if it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to morally do it

3. it is within my power to prevent deaths of starvation (ex. donating)

4. I ought to prevent those deaths of starvation

thought experiement

hypothetical situation to establish something in the real world; establishes intuitions or stress-test principles

effective altruism

movement that says you should donate as much money as possible to organizations that do the most good

is utilitarianism okay with making one person worse off for the better good of the whole?

yes

Rawls' Project

1. define conditions under which the hypothetical is/will take place

2. argument that Rawls's principle of justice would be chosen under the hypothetical concerns

3. show that Rawls principles are correct

a. ignorance = justice requires impartiality (veil of ignorance)

b. the liberty principle

Rawls principle of justice

what we would agree to in an initial situation of equality (ex. the poker example talked about in class)

the liberty principle

each person is to have an equal and extensive set of basic liberties

the slogan (the person-affecting claim)

one situation cannot be worse (or better) than another if there's no one for whom it is worse or better

egalitarianism

some sort of equality is an intrinsic good

the original position

we are unaware of our particular circumstances

according to Rawls, should we regulate the liberty principle

no

how should social and economic inequalities to be arranged

so they follow the difference and fair opportunity principles

the difference principle

to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged

the fair opportunity principle

attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity

which Principle is most importance above all others according to Rawls

the liberty principle

what is the problem of rational choice under uncertainty

when we make choices, we are not definitely sure of the outcome

prioritarian

follows the difference principle(to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged)

two theories of utility

maximize expected utility maximize average values (Rawls says gives the wrong results) and maximin principle

maximin

making the worst outcome as good as possible

constraints on our decisions from the original position

physical and logical, finality (no going back on your decision), and publicity (everyone has to know your reasoning)

motivations for Rawls

explanatory power, moral significance of persons, and it's bad that some are worse off than others

trickle down economics

more wealth at the top helps benefit the worse off at the bottom

Wilt Chamberlain objection

to give people liberty, that means we cannot impose ANY restriction on individual property holdings

who says it is immoral to have billionaires in the world

liberal egalitarians, prioritarians, socialists

who is on the fence about whether it is immoral to have billionaires in the world

utilitarians

who says it is not immoral to have billionaires in the world

libertarians

why do liberal egalitarians disagree with billionaires

it is a violation of principles

why do prioritarians disagree with billionaires

doesn't prioritize the worse off

why do socialists disagree with billionaires

production and power dynamics are owned by rich people

why are utilitarians on the fence about billionaires

the decision point gives an unevenness in theory

motivations for marx

avoid exploitation, take care of needs, and avoid alienation

what is communism's end goal

to eliminate private property

what does socialism focus too much on

labor/labor theory of value

labor theory of value

1. labor and labor alone creates vale

2. the capitalist receives some value of the product

3. the laborer receives less value than they create

4. capitalist receives some value laborer creates

5. therefore the laborer is exploited by the capitalist

enshittification

decreasing the quality of a product so that people continue investing their money into it and buying the product (if their product was too good and people didn't need new ones, they'd put themselves out of business)

a contemporary socialist argument

1. the laborer is the only person who creates the product which has value

2. the capitalist receives some of the value of that product

3. the laborer receives less value than they create

4. the capitalist receives some of the value of what the laborer creates

5. the laborer is exploited by the capitalist

alienation

people do not get compensation related to their labor (ex paid in wages for chopping wood and not receiving any wood)

Why does Michael Sandel think that economics is not value neutral (and give an example)

Deciding what should or shouldn't be for sale requires subjective judgments about what kind of good something is and how it should be valued (ex. fines v fees. a rich person could see a fine simply as a fee for that action)

Does Sandel think you can put a price on something and retain the nature of it? use an example in your answer

no, not everything. although it does not change material goods, such as a TV, it does change goods tied to relationships, such as friendship.

does a virtue theorist think love and virtue are limited resources? how does their view relate to how much we should ask citizens, in terms of civic duty?

No. Aristotle and Rousseau see virtue and love as strengthened by practice, so we should ask a lot of citizens. to strengthen the muscle of virtue, we should continuously ask citizens to do at least the bare minimum to identify with the common good and their community. Sandel's example is if a couple hordes their love and doesn't share it, their love and relationship wouldn't deepen and would rather deplete

if a moral theory provides rules, is it enough to call it deontological

no. the important part of a deontological moral theory is what justifies the rules. it needs to rely on more than the outcomes; for example duty, responsibility, or respect for other people.

What is the state of nature according to Locke? What does he think it shows about a just system of government and how does the role of government relate to property

it is a state of equality and freedom governed by the state of nature. no one can govern each other or infringe upon another person's life, liberty, or possessions and everyone has the power to enforce it. it says that a just government is not natural or divine. he believes in the night watchman and checks and balance government, meaning the government only should get involved when necessary to enforce property laws. in relation to property, it comes before the government and the labor theory of value rules (putting sweat equity into something makes it yours).

Pick a major theory of justice and explain something they take to be intrinsically good and why it's important to them

utilitarians think that pleasure is an intrinsic good because at the root of anything we do or any decision we make, it is for our own pleasure. asking someone why they want to be happy would be an odd question to ask, therefore helping its defense of it being an intrinsic good. if it makes EVERYONE happy it can not be for what it gets you or people would want different things.

what is the experience machine and what is it meant to test

it is a thought experiment where everyone could theoretically get into a machine that injects drugs into you that will constantly make you feel pleasure but it could come with diminishing value) meant to test real world intuitions and stress tests about utilitarianism and see if pleasure really is the highest good

if everyones preferences get fulfilled, does a utilitarian think we are in a just or morally acceptable society?

yes. everyone's utility, welfare, pleasure, and happiness would be maximized, which is the goal of utilitarianism. justice itself is not a concern for utilitarians, they only worry about maximizing welfare and happiness. however, this is only true for informed preferences and assumes all preferences filled will end in pleasure. since we can not be definitely sure of the outcomes of our decisions, this would only work if the preferences result in maximum happiness and welfare.

what are the motivations to adopt utilitarian theory? do they succeed?

everyone wants to be happy (it is an intrinsic good) and everyone's happiness counts equally so privilege and status does not matter. utilitarianism judges actions and intuitions based on their outcomes and not tradition or other laws. I do not think they succeed because people's preferences could contradict each other and be unjust. additionally, it does not always allow everyone to be better off because of this and act utilitarianism takes away the specialness and intimate relationships because you see everyone as equal and on the same level.

present singer's argument and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of his main principle. is one version more plausible than others?

singer's two main premises are: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad and if we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to morally do it. For example, if you pass a shallow pond with a drowning child, you should wade in, even though your clothes get muddy. he says that distance doesn't matter and you neighbor and a child across the world matter the same. Other people's ability to help does not pass responsibility from you to help. He says that we should give until giving costs us something of equal moral importance. His principles:

Strong version: Prevent bad things unless doing so sacrifices something of comparable moral importance.

Moderate version: Prevent very bad things unless doing so sacrifices anything morally significant.

Strengths of his argument are that the premises are widely accepted and it answer excuses (bystander effect). Weaknesses include demandingness and unrealistic expectations, vagueness with the phrase of comparable moral importance or morally significant, some people may argue that they have rights and special obligations so it doesn't apply to them, and we don't know how effective the aid is. The moderate version is more plausible because it is easier to accept while still delivering his conclusion.

present and explain timmerman's counterexample to singer. how much does he disagree with singer and do you think he succeeds?

Timmerman accepts Singer's premises except premise 2 (prevent bad things if you can without sacrificing anything nearly as important). He argues Singer's pond case is a one-off, so it doesn't justify a lifelong duty of repeated sacrifice. His "Drowning Children" case: hackers drain Lisa's account $200 every 5 minutes, and she finds ponds full of drowning children she can save at 5 minutes each, with the same thing every day for life. Premise 2 would require her to give up nearly everything, but commonsense says she may keep some good (e.g., a night at the theatre). So premise 2 is false and the pond case can't support it. If intuitions about Lisa are unreliable, so are those about the pond (parity). He accepts we owe a great deal, just not as much as Singer. He succeeds in showing the pond case doesn't prove premise 2, but Singer could reply that the intuition is biased or that the principle just needs a cap on cumulative sacrifice.

what is the veil of ignorance and how does it relate to the original position? what are Rawls's perimeters for making decisions from the original position and do you think position can be properly accessed and used?

the veil of ignorance is a blank slate where you are unaware of any of your circumstances or situations (ex status). this makes it fair because no one knows if/who is better than others. it essentially puts us back into the original position where there is no government or power dynamics yet. his parameters are self interested and rational because what's good for you is good for everyone, primary goods so u have a basic understanding of what is good such as rights, and you will end up in maximin. I do not think this is a realistic position to access and use because it is a hypothetical situation that is not meant to be real and once humans gained knowledge or learned something, it is impossible to forget that information and not incorporate it to future decisions, even subconsciously.

what is the liberty principle and what is its role in Rawls theory of justice. is it possible to retain his liberty principle while also valuing equality in the way that he does?

the liberty principle gives everyone equal and extensive rights that can not be taken away. in Rawls theory of justice the Liberty Principle is above all others and take priority for any and all decisions. yes because since his principles are ordered and liberty trumps all others, so it will always be available.

when does Rawls think inequalities are permissible? explain in terms of any principles to which he may be committed

explain the maximin principle and how it is used (with an example). do you think it shows there is a difference between how we make decisions for ourselves and people we know versus decisions for a population?

is there any practical difference between using the maximin principle and utilitarian reasoning? use an example to explain your answer

what is the leveling down objection and who is it meant to target? do you think it's successful?

what is the slogan and how is it used to establish; ish whether a situation is just? present and explain an issue with the slogan. do you think it shows that the slogan is false?

does the socialist think that questions distribution are the right questions to ask? why or why not?

explain how socialists can disagree with each other about the ownership of public goods. do you think this makes one version of socialism more plausible than others?