Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy
Lecture 7
What justifies inequalities: Some important approaches
1. Market justice
- There is no distinction between “earning” and “deserving”. Your salary (price)
reflects your contributions (value).
2. Utilitarian justice
- Income inequalities are justified when they maximize “the greatest happiness
for the greatest number”.
3. Meritocratic justice
- People should be rewarded according to the formula: talent + effort. Your
contribution (value) should be reflected in your salary (price).
4. Liberal egalitarian justice
- Income should be distributed on the basis of “equal concern and respect”.
Liberal egalitarian justice: Rawls’ famous two principles of justice
- First principle
o Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal
liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
- Second principle
o Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and
b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity
- First priority rule (The priority of liberty)
o The principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order and therefore liberty can
only be restricted for the sake of liberty
- Second priority rule (The priority of justice over efficiency and welfare)
o The second principle of justice is lexically prior to the principle of efficiency and
that of maximizing the sum of advantages; and fair opportunity is prior to the
difference principle.
1
,Counterintuitive conclusions (Kymlicka)
- Critique 1. The second principle does not compensate for natural inequalities
- Critique 2. The second principle allows for subsidizing people's choices
o Imagine two equally talented young political science students. They are both offered
a PHD-position, and after that a tenured position at their former department of
political science.
o In the first years of their career however, they make different choices. A is very
eager to become a full professor, and he works very hard to meet the requirements. At
the age of 40, he was appointed full professor. B is satisfied with a position as
associate professor. He too could meet the requirements, but chooses not to: he wants
to spend more time on his hobbies and family life.
o According to the second principle, A may only receive a higher salary if this also
leads to a rise in the salary of B. But is this “just”?
Dworkin's correction to rawls
- Peoples of distribution should pass the so-called “Envy-test”, and thus be both:
1. Endowment-insensitive
o Natural luck alone should not justify a greater share of income
o This prevents those without natural talents (or even “handicaps”) from envying the
“lucky ones”
2. Ambition-sensitive
o Effort and ambition are justified grounds for a greater share
o This prevents the hard working people from envying the less ambitious and lazy
- Two concrete examples of policies based on these principles:
2
, o Workfare: Those dependent upon welfare should provide services in return
o Double insurance scheme: basic healthcare for all, but private schemes when
wanted (compare also three-tier pension schemes).
Beyond redistribution?
1. Liberal egalitarianism presents itself as an alternative to market justice;
2. However, as longs as it accepts the market economy “as it is”, the practical translation
will always be redistribution by taxes and transfers (ex post corrections);
3. Perhaps we should try to develop ex ante proposals to prevent inequalities in the first
place (predistribution);
4. However, this may require to reconsider the basic elements of market economies
Varieties of distribution and redistribution
The capabilities approach: Elements of the capabilities-approach
- The capabilities approach pretends to be superior to utilitarian (GDP) and
quasi-Rawlsian (GDP plus redistribution) approaches (p. 18).
- Elements of the capabilities approach:
1. It treats people as ends in themselves
2. It is focused on choice and freedom
3
, 3. It is pluralist about value
4. It is concerned with entrenched social injustice and inequality
5. It ascribes a task for government and public policy to enhance people’s
capabilities
What are capabilities?
1. Capabilities are more than just “formal” individual freedoms; it also concludes
(im)possibilities of the political, social and economic environment (p. 20). In other
words; substantial freedoms.
2. Combined capabilities are more than “internal capabilities”: it refers to internal
capabilities plus the social, political and economic environment (one of two is not
enough).
3. The approach is strongly related to the idea of human flourishing and self-realization.
It stresses that ‘internal capabilities’ are not just the natural talents by birth (basic
capabilities), but also the capacity to develop these talents.
What are the central capabilities?
1. Life
2. Health
3. Bodily integrity
4. Mental skills (‘Senses, imagination and thought’)
5. Emotions
6. Practical reason
7. Community (‘affiliation’)
8. Environmental health (‘other species’)
9. Play
10. Control of one’s environment (political rights, property rights, employment rights)
Differences with
- Meritocratic approaches
o People who need more help deserve more help
- Utilitarian approaches
o Basic capabilities must be guaranteed for all
- Rawlsian approaches
4
Lecture 7
What justifies inequalities: Some important approaches
1. Market justice
- There is no distinction between “earning” and “deserving”. Your salary (price)
reflects your contributions (value).
2. Utilitarian justice
- Income inequalities are justified when they maximize “the greatest happiness
for the greatest number”.
3. Meritocratic justice
- People should be rewarded according to the formula: talent + effort. Your
contribution (value) should be reflected in your salary (price).
4. Liberal egalitarian justice
- Income should be distributed on the basis of “equal concern and respect”.
Liberal egalitarian justice: Rawls’ famous two principles of justice
- First principle
o Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal
liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
- Second principle
o Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and
b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity
- First priority rule (The priority of liberty)
o The principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order and therefore liberty can
only be restricted for the sake of liberty
- Second priority rule (The priority of justice over efficiency and welfare)
o The second principle of justice is lexically prior to the principle of efficiency and
that of maximizing the sum of advantages; and fair opportunity is prior to the
difference principle.
1
,Counterintuitive conclusions (Kymlicka)
- Critique 1. The second principle does not compensate for natural inequalities
- Critique 2. The second principle allows for subsidizing people's choices
o Imagine two equally talented young political science students. They are both offered
a PHD-position, and after that a tenured position at their former department of
political science.
o In the first years of their career however, they make different choices. A is very
eager to become a full professor, and he works very hard to meet the requirements. At
the age of 40, he was appointed full professor. B is satisfied with a position as
associate professor. He too could meet the requirements, but chooses not to: he wants
to spend more time on his hobbies and family life.
o According to the second principle, A may only receive a higher salary if this also
leads to a rise in the salary of B. But is this “just”?
Dworkin's correction to rawls
- Peoples of distribution should pass the so-called “Envy-test”, and thus be both:
1. Endowment-insensitive
o Natural luck alone should not justify a greater share of income
o This prevents those without natural talents (or even “handicaps”) from envying the
“lucky ones”
2. Ambition-sensitive
o Effort and ambition are justified grounds for a greater share
o This prevents the hard working people from envying the less ambitious and lazy
- Two concrete examples of policies based on these principles:
2
, o Workfare: Those dependent upon welfare should provide services in return
o Double insurance scheme: basic healthcare for all, but private schemes when
wanted (compare also three-tier pension schemes).
Beyond redistribution?
1. Liberal egalitarianism presents itself as an alternative to market justice;
2. However, as longs as it accepts the market economy “as it is”, the practical translation
will always be redistribution by taxes and transfers (ex post corrections);
3. Perhaps we should try to develop ex ante proposals to prevent inequalities in the first
place (predistribution);
4. However, this may require to reconsider the basic elements of market economies
Varieties of distribution and redistribution
The capabilities approach: Elements of the capabilities-approach
- The capabilities approach pretends to be superior to utilitarian (GDP) and
quasi-Rawlsian (GDP plus redistribution) approaches (p. 18).
- Elements of the capabilities approach:
1. It treats people as ends in themselves
2. It is focused on choice and freedom
3
, 3. It is pluralist about value
4. It is concerned with entrenched social injustice and inequality
5. It ascribes a task for government and public policy to enhance people’s
capabilities
What are capabilities?
1. Capabilities are more than just “formal” individual freedoms; it also concludes
(im)possibilities of the political, social and economic environment (p. 20). In other
words; substantial freedoms.
2. Combined capabilities are more than “internal capabilities”: it refers to internal
capabilities plus the social, political and economic environment (one of two is not
enough).
3. The approach is strongly related to the idea of human flourishing and self-realization.
It stresses that ‘internal capabilities’ are not just the natural talents by birth (basic
capabilities), but also the capacity to develop these talents.
What are the central capabilities?
1. Life
2. Health
3. Bodily integrity
4. Mental skills (‘Senses, imagination and thought’)
5. Emotions
6. Practical reason
7. Community (‘affiliation’)
8. Environmental health (‘other species’)
9. Play
10. Control of one’s environment (political rights, property rights, employment rights)
Differences with
- Meritocratic approaches
o People who need more help deserve more help
- Utilitarian approaches
o Basic capabilities must be guaranteed for all
- Rawlsian approaches
4
