1.

Sketch Rawlss distinction between the natural liberty, liberal equality, and d
emocratic equality views of distributive justice. Which of these views is the mo
st compelling account of distributive justice? And why? In answering this questi
on, you should discuss Rawlss case for democratic equality, as well as the argume
nts in at least one of the following: Nozick, Hayek, Friedman, GA Cohen. (3000-3
500 words)
12. INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SECOND PRINCIPLE 12. The Second Principle I have alrea
dy mentioned that since the phrases everyones advantage and equally open to all are a
mbiguous, both parts of the second principle have two natural senses. Because th
ese senses are independent of one another, the principle has four possible meani
ngs. Assuming that the first principle of equal liberty has the same sense throu
ghout, we then have four interpretations of the two principles. These are indica
ted in the table below.
Everyones advantage Equally open Equality as careers open to talents Equality as equa
lity of fair opportunity Principle of efficiency System of Natural Liberty Liber
al Equality Difference principle Natural Aristocracy Democratic Equality
I shall sketch in turn these three interpretations: the system of natural liberty
, liberal equality, and democratic equality. In some respects this sequence is t
he more intuitive one, but the sequence via the interpretation of natural aristo
cracy is not without interest and I shall comment on it briefly. In working out
justice as fairness, we must decide which interpretation is to be preferred. I s
hall adopt that of democratic equality, explaining in the next section what this
notion means. The argument for its acceptance in the original position does not
begin until the next chapter.
Walk through Rawls argument (first introduce his two principles [of justice?],
then describe these interpretations of the second principle)
How else might the second principle be interpreted?
What if we moved right on the table instead of down -- that is, what if we were
to examine natural aristocracy first instead of liberal equality?
For arguments against, discuss how GA Cohen thinks that Rawls "didn t go far eno
ugh" [and talk about how Rawls theory of "justice as fairness" is superior to t
he idea that all sources of inequality are morally arbitrary b/c with the system
of incentives, some inequalities MAY benefit everybody. This would be consisten
t with treating everybody equal], so to speak, and if you have time, maybe touch
on how Nozick replied and interpreted Rawls. Bring in arguments discussed by e.
g. Victoria during the Justice podcast by Harvard s Professor Sandel
Somewhere, bring up the point that if put behind the veil of ignorance and consi
der justice from the original position, well, this would shape my thoughts on wh
at is just and that may not be so morally arbitrary [you might be on to somethin
g here; look this up and reason with this idea a little bit more].
"Second, the difference principle says that inequalities are permissible only if
they maximally benefit the least advantaged. To understand how this works, it i
s essential to keep in mind that we are not assuming a fixed economic pie: so if
inequalities foster economic growth, the results can make everyone better off.
Thus consider two cases: compensation and incentives. Someone might legitimately
be paid more than someone else because the higher income compensates for expens
ive training and education that enable the person to take on socially desirable
tasks; or inequalities might make sense as incentives encouraging people to take
on tasks they would otherwise be unable or simply unwilling to take on. Accordi
ng to the difference principle such inequalities may be perfectly just, but they
must be no greater than necessary to maximally benefit the least advantaged: th
us if someone needs an incentive to take on a job that is socially beneficial, t

he incentive is perfectly just, provided that it is no larger than necessary to

get the person to do the job. The ordinary workings of labor markets are not lik
ely to satisfy this principle, because those workings reward people with scarce
talents. So tax rates and income transfers must be adjusted with the aim of ensu
ring that any increase in tax rates, for example, would worsen the conditions of
the least advantaged and any decrease would do so as well"
Make an argument on implementation: how do we determine this amount? How do we k
now society s Pareto efficient outcome? And fundamentally, how do we get legisla
tors under a veil of ignorance?
But overall, argue on PRINCIPLE
Minimum ought to be optimized, not maximized