unit 4

TERMS:

Plato

1. Happiness of Guardians (Plato): Plato argues that the happiness of the guardians, or the ruling class in his ideal city, should not be the focus of the society’s design. Instead, he advocates for a structure where each class performs its designated role, with the guardians focusing on wisdom and maintaining order, rather than personal pleasure. The guardians’ happiness is secondary to the overall harmony of the state, as justice, for Plato, is achieved when each class contributes to the common good without overstepping its role. This perspective underscores Plato’s belief in a well-ordered society as essential for justice.

2. Wealth/Poverty (Plato): Plato sees wealth and poverty as potentially destructive forces within the city, as they can disrupt the balance necessary for justice. He believes excessive wealth leads to greed and corruption, while poverty causes resentment and instability. In his ideal city, wealth and poverty are minimized to keep the focus on each person fulfilling their natural role. This approach reflects Plato’s view that justice arises when individuals are not distracted by material excess but rather focus on their contribution to society.

3. Four Virtues (Plato): Plato identifies wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice as the four virtues that a just city should embody. Wisdom comes from the rulers, courage from the auxiliaries, and moderation from a balanced harmony among the classes. Justice, the fourth virtue, emerges when each part of the city (or individual) fulfills its role without interfering with the others. This alignment between city and soul reflects Plato’s idea that a harmonious structure in both leads to justice.

4. Definition of Justice (Plato): Plato defines justice as “doing one’s own work and not meddling with what is not one’s own.” In his view, justice in the city mirrors justice in the soul, where each part—rational, spirited, and appetitive—performs its function without overstepping. By organizing society so that everyone performs their designated role, Plato believes a stable, just community is formed, as each part contributes to the common good without conflict.

5. Three Parts of the City/Soul (Plato): Plato compares the structure of the city to the human soul, dividing both into three parts: the rational, the spirited, and the appetitive. The rational part (rulers) governs with wisdom, the spirited part (warriors) upholds courage, and the appetitive part (producers) satisfies desires under control. Justice is achieved when these parts harmonize, emphasizing Plato’s belief that justice is both an internal state and a social structure.

Rawls

1. Principles of Justice (Rawls): Rawls introduces two principles of justice: the principle of equal basic liberties and the difference principle, which allows inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged. He uses these principles to propose a fair and equitable society where people, unaware of their own social status (via the “veil of ignorance”), would choose these rules to ensure justice. This framework highlights Rawls’ commitment to fairness and equality as core to social justice.

2. Difference Principle (Rawls): The difference principle states that social and economic inequalities are only permissible if they result in compensating benefits, especially for society’s least advantaged members. Rawls believes this approach respects the dignity of each individual, as any inequality must ultimately serve the collective good. This principle is foundational to his theory of justice, as it emphasizes fairness and equal opportunity within a structured society.

3. Justice as Fairness (Rawls): “Justice as fairness” is Rawls’ conception of a just society, where fairness governs the distribution of rights, responsibilities, and opportunities. By employing the “original position” and “veil of ignorance,” Rawls argues that people would choose fair principles that protect individual liberties and promote social equity. This concept stresses his belief that justice should be impartial and uphold individual dignity within a cooperative society.

4. Original Position/Veil of Ignorance (Rawls): Rawls’ “original position” is a hypothetical scenario where individuals select societal principles without knowledge of their own social position, abilities, or preferences—ensuring unbiased choices. This “veil of ignorance” encourages a fair agreement, as individuals would aim to create a society where everyone could flourish regardless of personal circumstances. It’s a cornerstone of Rawls’ theory, underscoring his commitment to fairness and impartiality in justice.

5. Argument Against Utility (Rawls): Rawls opposes utilitarianism, which promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number, as he believes it can overlook individual rights and the well-being of the minority. In contrast, his theory emphasizes protecting individual liberties and equitable opportunities. Rawls argues that justice should not sacrifice personal rights for the collective good, advocating instead for a structure that safeguards fairness for all members.

6. Teleology/Deontology (Rawls): Rawls contrasts teleological theories, which prioritize outcomes, with deontological theories, which focus on following fair principles regardless of the results. Rawls’ approach is deontological, as he argues that justice must be grounded in procedures that respect fairness over particular outcomes. This distinction underscores his view that justice is about the right processes, not merely achieving desired results.

7. Primary Social Goods (Rawls): Rawls defines primary social goods as essentials that every rational person would want, such as rights, liberties, income, and opportunities. These goods are the basis of his principles of justice, as they represent the resources individuals need to pursue their goals. By focusing on these goods, Rawls seeks to create a fair foundation for society, where everyone has the means to achieve personal fulfillment.

8. Imperfect, Perfect, Pure Procedural Justice (Rawls): Rawls distinguishes between types of procedural justice, where “perfect” justice has clear, agreed-upon outcomes, and “pure” justice relies solely on fair procedures to produce just outcomes. In his theory, procedural justice ensures that fairness is embedded in decision-making, highlighting his emphasis on equitable processes over specific end results.

Iris Marion Young

1. Social Justice (Young): Young argues that social justice involves creating the institutional conditions necessary for individuals to realize their potential and pursue the “good life.” Unlike traditional distributive frameworks, she emphasizes that justice must address social structures and processes, particularly those related to oppression and domination. This view expands justice beyond mere distribution, focusing instead on empowering individuals to participate in shaping their lives.

2. Domination (Young): For Young, domination refers to systemic structures that exclude individuals from participating in decisions affecting their lives. It impedes self-determination, as people are denied agency over their own choices. Young critiques traditional justice theories for overlooking this, suggesting that justice should prioritize dismantling these exclusionary systems to support true equality and autonomy.

3. Oppression (Young): Oppression, in Young’s view, is a systematic limitation on individuals’ ability to develop and exercise their capabilities. Unlike the distributive model, which focuses on material goods, Young’s concept of justice requires addressing these non-material barriers to self-development. Her focus on oppression and the structural context of injustice underscores her belief that justice must support individual growth and community participation.

4. Critique of Distributive Paradigm (Young): Young criticizes the distributive paradigm for reducing justice to the allocation of goods, which she argues neglects the social processes that underlie inequalities. She contends that focusing solely on distribution obscures issues like decision-making power and cultural recognition, which are vital to achieving justice. Her critique calls for a justice model that accounts for these broader social dynamics.

5. Self-Respect (Young): Young believes self-respect is influenced not just by material conditions but by one’s social environment, autonomy, and recognition. While Rawls includes self-respect as a primary good, Young argues that justice must address the relational and institutional factors that impact it. Her approach highlights the importance of creating supportive social structures that foster both individual dignity and community respect.

PASSAGES:

Plato

 1. “Justice is doing one’s own work and not meddling with what is not one’s own.” (Book IV, 433a-b)

 • Explanation: Plato defines justice as each person fulfilling their natural role in society without interfering in others’ roles. This notion of justice emphasizes harmony within a structured society, where individuals contribute based on their abilities and dispositions. Plato’s definition highlights his belief in a well-ordered state where justice is achieved through balance and unity, reflecting his broader philosophy of a structured society as necessary for the common good. This perspective also underscores his focus on justice as both a personal and societal virtue.

 2. “The city was thought to be just because each of the three natural classes within it did its own job.” (Book IV, 435b)

 • Explanation: Plato’s view of justice relies on the concept of specialization, where each class in the city—rulers, warriors, and producers—performs its designated function. This arrangement ensures stability and prevents conflict, as each group contributes to the overall well-being of the city. By dividing responsibilities, Plato aims to create an ideal city, or “Kallipolis,” where justice emerges naturally from the structure. This passage illustrates Plato’s belief in a harmonious society where order and balance are essential to achieving justice.

 3. “Each person must practice one of the pursuits in the city, the one for which he is naturally best suited.” (Book IV, 370b)

 • Explanation: Plato’s ideal city assigns roles based on individuals’ natural abilities, advocating that everyone should engage in tasks for which they are best suited. He believes that aligning people’s work with their capabilities leads to personal satisfaction and a more efficient society. This approach underscores Plato’s view of justice as a social structure where each person contributes meaningfully, helping the city to function harmoniously. Plato’s emphasis on natural aptitude reflects his belief that justice is rooted in fulfilling one’s nature.

 4. “Then, isn’t it appropriate for the rationally calculating element to rule, since it is really wise and exercises foresight on behalf of the whole soul; and for the spirited part to obey it and be its ally?” (Book IV, 441e)

 • Explanation: Plato argues that reason should govern the soul, with spirit supporting reason, and appetite under control. He views justice as harmony within the individual, where the rational part guides one’s actions, supported by courage and controlled desires. This internal harmony mirrors his ideal city structure and highlights Plato’s belief in self-discipline as essential for justice. The passage reinforces his idea that personal and societal justice are achieved when each part fulfills its proper role.

John Rawls

 1. “The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.” (Rawls, p. 862)

 • Explanation: Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” concept is a thought experiment in which individuals, unaware of their social position or personal characteristics, choose principles of justice. This setup encourages fairness, as people would want principles that protect everyone equally. The idea is foundational to Rawls’ concept of “justice as fairness,” suggesting that impartiality in decision-making leads to a just society. By emphasizing the veil of ignorance, Rawls advocates for a justice system that serves all, regardless of individual differences.

 2. “Social and economic inequalities…are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society.” (Rawls, p. 865)

 • Explanation: Rawls’ difference principle allows for inequalities only if they improve the well-being of the least advantaged members of society. He argues that a fair society does not eliminate inequalities but rather ensures that they provide benefits to everyone, especially the disadvantaged. This principle highlights Rawls’ commitment to a justice system that promotes equal opportunities and supports those in need, aligning with his broader philosophy of fairness as the basis for justice.

 3. “The original position is a device of representation.”

 • Explanation: Rawls’ “original position” is a theoretical standpoint from which individuals, behind a veil of ignorance, choose principles of justice. This concept represents a fair method of evaluating justice, as individuals make decisions without knowing their social standing, leading to unbiased choices. The original position is central to Rawls’ theory, as it allows us to examine justice objectively and encourages principles that would benefit everyone. This idea reflects his belief in fairness as essential to a just society.

 4. “Society is rightly ordered, and therefore just, when its major institutions are arranged so as to achieve the greatest net balance of satisfaction summed over all the individuals belonging to it.” (Utilitarianism, Rawls p. 867)

 • Explanation: Rawls contrasts his views with utilitarianism, which seeks to maximize overall happiness even at the expense of individual rights. He argues that justice should protect each individual rather than prioritizing aggregate satisfaction. This critique reflects Rawls’ belief that justice must be rooted in fairness and respect for individual dignity, not merely achieving the greatest overall happiness. His argument reinforces his commitment to individual rights within his concept of “justice as fairness.”

Iris Marion Young

 1. “Social justice concerns the degree to which a society contains and supports the institutional conditions necessary for the realization of those values [that constitute the good life].” (Young, p. 992)

 • Explanation: Young’s definition of social justice focuses on the institutional frameworks that enable individuals to live fulfilling lives. Rather than seeing justice merely as a fair distribution of material resources, Young emphasizes that justice requires the support of conditions that empower individuals to grow and reach their potential. This approach highlights Young’s broader critique of distributive justice, urging a shift towards addressing social structures that either support or inhibit personal and communal well-being. Her emphasis on institutional conditions for the “good life” reflects a deep belief that justice is tied to social environments that foster personal and collective flourishing.

 2. “I wish rather to displace talk of justice that regards persons as primarily possessors and consumers of goods to a wider context that also includes action, decisions about action, and provision of the means to develop and exercise capacities.” (Young, p. 978)

 • Explanation: Young calls for a shift from viewing justice as the distribution of goods to seeing it as part of a broader social context that includes decision-making and empowerment. She argues that people should be seen as active agents capable of making choices and developing their potential, not merely as recipients of material resources. This statement underscores her critique of the distributive justice model, which she believes reduces complex social relationships to transactions. Young’s approach redefines justice to include social processes that shape individuals’ opportunities and roles within society.

 3. “Domination: a system that excludes people from participating (self-determination); Oppression: a system that constrains self-development.”

 • Explanation: Young identifies domination and oppression as central forms of injustice. Domination limits self-determination by excluding people from decisions that affect them, while oppression restricts individuals from fully developing their abilities. By highlighting these two forms of systemic inequality, Young argues for a justice model that confronts the social and institutional barriers preventing individuals from leading autonomous lives. This shift underscores her commitment to justice as not just an equitable distribution but as a means to dismantle structures that perpetuate exclusion and limitation.

 4. “The general criticism I am making of the predominant focus on the distribution of wealth, income, and positions is that such a focus ignores and tends to obscure the institutional context within which those distributions take place.” (Young, p. 982)

 • Explanation: Young critiques the traditional focus on distributive justice for ignoring the structural context that affects how resources are distributed and experienced. She believes that focusing solely on material distribution misses the social processes that determine who has decision-making power and cultural representation. This argument is significant because it expands the concept of justice to include evaluating and transforming the systems in which distribution occurs, rather than merely addressing surface-level inequalities. Young’s perspective challenges us to consider justice in terms of inclusivity and systemic change.

 5. “Oppression, the institutional constraint on self-development, and domination, the institutional constraint on self-determination.” (Young, p. 992)

 • Explanation: This passage encapsulates Young’s focus on two primary injustices—oppression and domination—as fundamental to understanding social justice. She argues that oppression prevents individuals from fully developing their capabilities, while domination blocks them from exercising self-determination. Young’s emphasis on these constraints points to her broader view that justice should aim to dismantle institutions that limit autonomy and growth. Her philosophy redefines justice as a means of fostering empowerment and agency for marginalized groups within society.