To Add to rawls

Assumption of High Risk Aversion

pp. 73-77

The relation between the difference principle and the assumption of very high risk aversion is acknowledged.
It is important to clarify that extreme attitudes toward risk are not necessarily postulated (§28).
There are multiple reasons supporting the difference principle that do not involve aversion to risk.
The term "maximin criterion" should be specifically used for the rule of choice under uncertainty.

The second part of the second principle is interpreted as the liberal principle of fair equality of opportunity.
This principle should not be conflated with the notion of careers open to talents.
It is essential to understand that the consequences of fair equality of opportunity differ from the liberal interpretation of the combined principles.
Importantly, this principle avoids objections related to fostering a meritocratic society, which will be discussed further in §17.

The justification for requiring open positions is not strictly or primarily based on efficiency.
Open positions are important even if it is possible to enhance the overall benefit by allocating specific powers and rewards without full access to these positions for all.
Even when there are exclusions from certain offices, superior talent can still be attracted and performance improved; however, the principle of open positions ensures fair treatment.
If positions are not fairly open to all, those excluded would justifiably feel wronged, regardless of the overall benefits derived from the efforts of those in position.
This exclusion deprives individuals of significant aspects of human good, specifically the realization of oneself through meaningful social engagement.

The primary subject of justice, according to the theory of justice as fairness, is the basic structure.
Though all ethical theories acknowledge the basic structure’s relevance to justice, their treatment may differ.
Justice as fairness interprets society as a collaborative effort aimed at mutual benefit, with the basic structure being a public system of rules that outlines a framework for cooperative activities.
This structure enables individuals to collectively produce greater benefits and assigns recognized claims to share in the outcomes based on contributions made according to public rules.

The concept of pure procedural justice suggests the social system should be designed to yield just outcomes, irrespective of the nature of those outcomes, provided they fall within a reasonable range.
Pure procedural justice can be contrasted with perfect and imperfect procedural justice.

Illustrated through a fair cake division scenario:
- One individual divides the cake and takes the last piece, incentivizing equal division among others.
- Key features:
- There exists a predetermined independent standard defining a fair division.
- A procedure can be established that guarantees the desired result.
Notable assumptions include the divider's ability to divide equally and the desire to maximize their share, though details can be overlooked for conceptual clarity.

Exemplified by a criminal trial, where the desired outcome is to declare the defendant guilty only if the crime is committed.
Legal rules are framed to find and establish the truth, but designing infallible rules to ensure correct outcomes is generally unattainable.
A trial may lead to incorrect outcomes (e.g., wrongful conviction or acquittal) due to circumstances beyond human control, referred to as miscarriages of justice.
Imperfect procedural justice maintains an independent criterion for the correct outcome but lacks guaranteed procedures ensuring that outcome is achieved.

Defined as a scenario where there is no independent criterion for what is just; instead, a correct or fair procedure ensures fair outcomes, regardless of the specific result.
Illustrated via gambling examples:
- Multiple fair bets lead to a fair distribution of cash, as long as bets are voluntary and fair.
- Each distribution resulting from these bets is equally fair, provided the procedure is properly followed.
The key is the necessity of conducting the actual procedure to achieve justice; abstract fairness cannot confirm any distribution as just.

Applying pure procedural justice requires establishing and impartially administering a just system of institutions.
Only within the framework of a just basic structure can the requisite procedure for distributive justice be identified.
The role of the fair opportunity principle is to ensure pure procedural justice within cooperation systems.
Practical benefits of focusing on pure procedural justice include eliminating the complexities of continuously monitoring shifting individual circumstances.
The basic structure is assessed from a broader perspective rather than singular transactions; thus, the principles of distributive justice are not evaluated in isolation from the systemic context.
The two principles of justice do not approach distributive justice purely as an issue of allocative justice.
Allocative justice pertains to the fair division of goods among individuals with known desires, needs, and no existing cooperative ties.
In allocative contexts, goods may be shared based on desires or needs, often reflecting utilitarian perspectives which compare outcomes by their utility.
Utilitarianism lacks the understanding of the basic structure as a pure procedural justice scheme since it relies on independent standards for assessing distributions based on efficiency maximization rather than fairness in process.

Current assumptions treat the two parts of the second principle as lexically ordered.
This ordering creates a structured approach that benefits inquiry into distributive justice, shifting from generalities to investigating specific conditions under which such orderings might be selected.
The conceptual framework aims for simplicity and clarity regarding what constitutes a just basic structure, leveraging varied notions such as the veil of ignorance, lexical ordering, and the least favored position.