Humanities Core: Winter 2007
Lecture Outline 5
I.
Some facts:
a.
In 1999, of
roughly 6 billion people in the world, 1.2 billion lived in severe
poverty. Another 2.8 billion lived just
above the international poverty line. (United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report, 2002, PDF, p.
17, at http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/
)
b.
Each day over
20,000 people die by causes related to extreme poverty (according to
development economist, Jeffery Sachs, The
End of Poverty (Penguin Press, 2005), [the foreword of the book is by
Bono]).
II.
Poverty concerns
how people fare in absolute terms. Inequality concerns how people fare by comparison to one another.
i.
The three richest
billionaires together have more income than all of the least developed
countries and their 600 million people combined (UNDP, Human Development Report 1999, p. 3).
ii.
In 1997, the
income gap between the fifth of the world’s people living in the richest
countries and the fifth in the poorest was 71 to 1. In 1990, it was 60 to 1, in 1960, 30 to 1
(UNDP, Human Development Report 1999,
p. 3).
III.
Is all this
inevitable, a mere unfortunate fact of life?
a.
The leading
causes of poverty-related death are easily preventable.
b.
Rich countries do
not give very much.
IV.
Nothing is wrong
a.
Ethical Egoists,
like Hobbes: each person only has reason to promote his or her own interests;
we owe nothing to others.
b.
The Near and Dear View: we owe things not
only to ourselves but also to our friends and families; we nothing to anyone
else.
c.
The Zealous Patriot View: we owe things to
ourselves, to our families and friends, and also to our compatriots; we owe
nothing to foreigners.
i.
A child drowning
in a pond.
ii.
The Duty of Easy Rescue: when you can
prevent death or serious injury to another person at small or reasonable cost
to yourself, you are morally required to do so.
1.
Why only a “small
or reasonable cost”?
V.
If every human
being is in some sense of equal moral importance, what exactly does this
mean?
a.
Utilitarianism (Mill’s
view): the right action or just policy is that among the available options
which maximizes the greatest happiness, for the greatest number of people.
b.
John Rawls,
arguably the most influential political philosopher of the 20thC: social
justice places more basic requirements on how goods and resources are
distributed among people, quite aside from the general happiness.
i.
Society as a
“cooperative scheme for mutual advantage” (p. 137) Participants can lay
rightful claim to a fair share of its fruit.
ii.
Two stages: a
whole society, seen as “more or less self-sufficient” (p. 137), then relations
between societies (pp. 145-6).
VI.
How do we decide
what justice requires?
a.
Card game: A fair
rule would be one we would all have agreed to before seeing how likely we
ourselves were to win the hand.
b.
In a society, the
major political, social, and economic institutions have profound affects on
life prospects.
c.
The “original
position” (p. 138): people decide on governing principles from behind a “veil
of ignorance”: no one knows his or her birth family, talents, intelligence,
looks, gender, race, preferences, or ideas of the good life.
VII.
What are the
principles of justice?
a.
The Principle of Equal
b.
The Difference Principle: “inequalities are arbitrary unless it is reasonable
to expect that they will work out to everyone’s advantage and that the
positions and offices to which they attach and from which they may be gained
are open to all.”
i.
The second part:
non-discrimination plus “fair opportunity”
ii.
The first part: Inequalities
have to “maximize” prospects for “those who are less favored” (p. 142).
1.
Contra Hume (p.
140)
2.
Not just “Pareto
efficient” (p. 141): “it is impossible to make any one man better off without
at the same time making at least on other man worse off.”
3.
The crucial
question: How much do the worse off
have to benefit?
a.
The
4.
Inequality need
only be of some benefit to the least
advantaged person, however small.
5.
For Rawls: inequality
has to maximize the prospects of the
lowest class.
VIII.
Other theories of
justice
a.
Utilitarianism: maximize
the overall happiness, even if this requires sacrificing the vital interests of
a few people for the sake of small or trivial benefits to a very large number
of people.
i.
Parties behind
the veil of ignorance would not agree to utilitarianism.
b.
Libertarianism:
Rights of non-interference and property.
Government justified only as a voluntary private protection agency. Coerced taxation as theft.
i.
Rawls: cooperation
gives to each a claim to fair shares.
ii.
Property as an institution
c.
Socialism: a
just society is one in which people work collectively to ensure that everyone’s
life goes equally well, by compensating people for any ways they suffer
undeserved misfortune.
i.
Rawls: equity,
not (necessarily) equality
IX.
The political
spectrum in the
a.
Libertarians: far
to the right on economic policy, far to the left on “social issues.”
b.
Socialists: to
the far left on economic issues, but can be far to the right on social issues.
c.
Utilitarians: center-left
on social issues, but center-right on economic policy.
d.
Rawlsians: center-left
on social issues, and center-left on economic policy.