Liberal Equality

I.

Rawls Project
a. Intuitionism and utilitarianism
i. Most of the political philosophy written in the last 30 years has been on the
question of which rights and liberties to protect.
ii. John Rawls presented an alternative to utilitarianism in his 1971 book A Theory
of Justice.
1. Political theory was caught between two extremes: utilitarianism and
intuitionism (an incoherent jumble of ideas and principles; a series of
anecdotes based on particular intuitions about particular issues
a. Intuitionism is an unsatisfying alternative to utilitarianism, for it
does not go beyond and make sense of the particular intuitions
b. Intuitionist theories have two features:
i. A plurality of first principles which may conflict to give
contrary directives in particular types of cases
ii. No explicit method, no priority rules, for weighing these
principles against one another
1. Priority rules are thought to be trivial, have no
substantial assistance in reaching a judgment
c. There are many kinds of intuitionism (distinguishable by the level
of generality of their principles:
i. Common sense intuitionism
1. Takes the form of groups of rather specific
precepts
2. Each group applies to a particular problem of
justice
3. In arriving on one such notion, one must balance
somehow various competing criteria
4. No one presumably would decide by any one of
these precepts alone; compromise between
them must be struck
d. The various principles can also be of a much more general
nature
i. Thus it is common for people to talk about intuitively
balancing, for example, equality and liberty
1. These principles would apply to the entire range
of a theory of justice
e. These intuitionist approaches (either on the level of specific
precepts or general principles) are:
i. Theoretically unsatisfying
ii. Quite unhelpful in practical matters
f. Intuitionist approaches give no guidance when specific and
irreducible precepts conflict
i. When they conflict, we look to political theory for
guidance
2. The task of Rawls: to develop a systematic political theory that structures
our different intuitions
a. He does not assume that such theory exists, but it is worth trying
to find one
3. Rawls has a certain historical importance in breaking the intuitionismutilitarianism deadlock

4. His theory dominated the field because later theorists defined

themselves in opposition to Rawls
a. By contrasting themselves with Rawls theory, they explain their
theories.
b. To make sense of later works of justice is to understand Rawls
b. The principles of justice
i. Rawls idea
1. General conception of justice: All social primary goodsliberty and
opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respectare to be
distributed equally unless and unequal distribution of any or all of these
goods is to the advantage of the least favored
a. The idea of justice is tied to an equal share of social goods
i. Important twist: We treat people as equals not by
removing all inequalities, but only those which
disadvantage someone1
1. Inequalities are allowed if they improve my initial
equal share. Not allowed, as in utilitarianism, if
they invade my fair share2
b. This is not yet a full theory of justice
i. The various goods being distributed according to that
principle may conflict
ii. We need a system of priority amongst the different
elements in theory
1. Rawls solution: breaking down the general
conception of justice into three parts, arranged
according to the principle of lexical priority
2. Special conception of justice3:
a. First PrincipleEach person is to have
an equal right to the most extensive total
system of equal basic liberties
compatible with a similar system of
liberty of all.
b. Second PrincipleSocial and economic
inequalities are to be arranged so that
they are both:
i. To the greatest benefit of the
least advantaged, and
ii. Attached to offices and positions
open to all under conditions of
fair equality of opportunity
1 If certain inequalities benefit everyone, by drawing out socially useful talents and energies, then they will
be acceptable to everyone.

2 It can be thought as giving the less well off a kind of veto over inequalities, which they would exercise to
reject any inequalities which sacrifice, rather than promote, their interests. At the heart of Rawls theory

3 Seeks to provide the systematic guidance that intuitionism could not give us

c.

c.

First Priority Rule (The Priority of

Liberty) The principles of justice are to
be ranked in lexical order and therefore
liberty can be restricted only for the sake
of liberty.
d. Second Priority Rule (The Priority of
Justice over Efficiency and Welfare)
The second principle of justice is
lexically prior to the principle of
efficiency and to that of maximizing the
sum of advantages; and fair opportunity
is prior to the difference principle.
3. The
two
principles
above
states/assumes/asserts that some social goods
are more important than others, and cannot be
sacrificed to improve other goods 4
a. Rawls simple idea remains
b. Rawls answer to the question of justice
4. The Second Principle is called as the difference
principle
a. Governs the distribution of economic
principles
iii. Rawls is not endorsing a general principle of liberty
iv. Rawls gives special protection to basic liberties5
v. The disputes between Rawls and his critics tend to be
on other issues6
1. The rejection of utilitarianism was based on the
need for a theory of fair shares in economic
resources as well7
vi. Rawls argument for his principles of justice:
1. Contrasting his theory with the prevailing
ideology (ideal of equality of opportunity)8
2. His principles are superior because they are the
outcome of a hypothetical social contract9
The Intuitive Equality of Opportunity Argument

4 Equal liberty>equal opportunity>equal resources

5 The standard civil and political rights recognized in liberal democracies

6 Because the basic liberties having priority is widely shared in society

7 More controversial; Kymlickas rejection, though can be angled to be Rawls. Still, all evidence points
out that it is Kymlicka that rejects utilitarianism on that reason. Some people reject the need for or the
idea of the theory itself.

i. Equality of Opportunity-prevailing justification for

economic distribution in society
1. Inequalities in income, etc.-justifiable only
through fair competition
2. Conflicts with Rawls theory (It might allow
equality of opportunity in allotting positions, it
denies that those who fill such positions are
entitled to a greater share of the societys
resources)10
3. It seems fair to many people because it ensures
that peoples fate is determined by their choices,
rather than their circumstances.
a. Success or failure in society will be the
result of our own choices and efforts.
4. People disagree about what is needed to ensure
fair equality of opportunity
a. Beliefs on what is needed:
i. Legal
non-discrimination
in
education and employment is
sufficient
ii. Affirmative action programmes
for economically and culturally
disadvantaged groups, for the
acquiring of genuinely equal
opportunity
for
economic
success
b. Central motivating idea for the two
cases above: It is fair for individuals to
have unequal shares of social goods if
those inequalities are earned and
deserved by the individual, that is, if
they are the product of the individuals
action and choices.
i. But it is unfair for individuals to
be disadvantaged of privileged
by arbitrary and undeserved

8 His theory, Rawls argued, fits better our considered intuitions concerning justice, and that its
spells-out the very ideals of fairness (which the prevailing ideology appeals to) better.
9 Rawls claims that if people in a certain kind of pre-social state had to decide which principles should
govern their society, they would choose his principles because each person (in the state of the original
position) has a rational interest in adopting Rawlsian principles for the governing of social cooperation.

10 Under the prevailing idea of equality of opportunity, the less well-off have no veto over these
inequalities, and no right to expect to benefit from them.

5.

6.

7.

8.

differences in their social

circumstances11
ii. Ignored a source of undeserved
inequality: inequalities of natural
talent.12
This prevailing ideal is unstable (see above and
note 12)
a. Once we are troubled by the influence of
either social contingencies or natural
chance on the determination of
distributive shares, we are bound, on
reflection, to be bothered by the
influence of the other. From a moral
standpoint the two seem to be equally
arbitrary.
i. Dworkin
says
that
the
undeserved character of natural
assets makes the prevailing
view not so much unstable as
fraudulent.
The naturally handicapped do not have an equal
opportunity to acquire social benefits, and their
lack of success has nothing to do with their
choices or effort.
a. Makes the prevailing view inadequate, if
we are genuinely interested in removing
undeserved inequalities.
Recognizes
only
differences
in
social
circumstances
a. An arbitrary limit on the application of its
own central intuition
How to treat difference in natural talents
a. Rawls: There may be cases where
everyone benefits from allowing the
influence of undeserved natural talents.
(What the difference principle says)13

11 Rawls recognized the attractiveness of this view.

12 Natural talents and social circumstances are both matters of brute luck, and peoples moral claims
should not depend on brute luck.

13 While no one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favourable starting place in
societyit does not follow that one should eliminate these distinctions. There is another way to deal with
them. The basic structure can be arranged so that these contingencies work for the good of the least
fortunate. Thus we are led to the difference principle if we wish to set up the social system so that no one
gains or loses from his arbitrary place in the distribution of natural assets or his initial position in society
without giving or receiving compensating advantages in return.

i. Rawls first argument for his

theory of fair shares.14
d. The Social Contract Argument
i. Rawls considered the first argument less important than
the second
ii. His main argument is about what sort of political morality
people would choose were they setting up society from
an original position. (kind of a social contract)
1. The first argument above merely prepares the
ground for the second argument (based on the
idea of social contract)15
a. Dworkin, although thinking that social
contract arguments are bad arguments
(see note 15), there is another way of
interpreting them: Contracts can be
thought as devices for teasing out the
implications of certain moral premisses
concerning peoples moral equality. The
idea of a state of nature can be invoked
to model the idea of the moral equality
of individuals.16
i. Classical liberals (see note 16)
are not anarchists.17
ii. This (see note 17) is the kind of
theory that Rawls is adapting.18

14 Kymlicka notes that the argument does not explain why the difference principle applies to all
inequalities.
15 Rawls seems to relegate his fairly strong first argument as a back-up to his weaker second argument.
Social contract arguments, like the nature of Rawls second argument, are thought to be weak because
they seem to rely on very implausible assumptions. Criticism: there was never a state of nature where
there was no political authority. As Dworkin says, a hypothetical agreement is not simply a pale form of an
actual contract; it is no contract at all.

16 Part of the idea of being moral equals is the claim that none of us is inherently subordinate to the will
of others, etc. We are born free and equal, vis--vis the feudal premise, which classical liberals like Locke
took as a historical mission to deny it. The idea of a state of nature does not an anthropological claim
about the pre-social existence of human beings, but a moral claim about the absence of natural
subordination amongst human beings.

17 Since they are not anarchists, the pressing question was How did people born free and equal come to
be governed? Answer: Due to uncertainties and scarcities of social life, individuals, without giving up their
moral equality, would endorse ceding certain powers to the state, but only if the state used these powers
in trust to protect individuals from those uncertainties and scarcities. Trust betrayed=right to rebel.

b. The point of the contract is to determine

principles of justice from a position of
quality.19
2. While Rawls original position corresponds to
the idea of state of nature, it also differs from it. 20
a. Here (see note 20), the contract
argument joins with his intuitive
argument.
b. The usual account of the state of nature
is unfair because some people have
more bargaining power21 than others
and they are able to hold out longer for
a better deal, while those who are less
strong or talented have to make
concessions.22
3. Rawls developed the original position due to
the need for a new device23 to tease out the
implications of moral equality24
a. People are behind a veil of ignorance
18 Rawls aim in his adaptation is to present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries to a
higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract as found, say, in Locke, Rousseau, and
Kant.

19 In Rawls theory, the original position of equality corresponds to the state of nature in the
traditional theory of the social contract. The original position is not, of course, thought of as an
actual historical state of affairs, much less as a primitive condition of culture. It is understood as
a purely hypothetical situation characterized so as to lead to a certain conception of justice.
20 Rawls believes that the usual state of nature is not really an initial position of equality.

21 More natural talents, initial resources, or sheer physical strengths

22 The uncertainties of nature affect everyone, but some people can deal better than them, and they will
not agree to a social contract unless it entrenches their natural advantage. Unfair in Rawls eyes

23 This device prevents people from exploiting their arbitrary advantages in the selection of principles of
justice.

24 Since these natural advantages are undeserved, they should not privilege or disadvantage people in
determining principles of justice.

i. No one knows his place in

society and the like
b. The principles of justice are chosen
behind the veil
i. This ensures that no one is
advantaged or disadvantaged in
the choice of principles by the
outcome of natural chance or
the contingency of social
circumstances.25
4. According to critics:
a. The demand that people distancing
themselves from knowledge of their
personal reality26= evidence of a
bizarre theory of personal identity.27
i. But the veil of ignorance is not
an expression of a theory of
personal identity.28
5. The veil of ignorance ensures that those who
might be able to influence the selection process
in their favor, due to their better position, are
unable to do so.29

25 This is because all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his particular
condition, leading to the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain.

26 My term. Tee hee! Sa mga Toaru Kagaku no Railgun and sa second season watchers lang. Adapted to
mean the social background and individual desires.

27 What is left of ones self when all that knowledge is excluded?

28 It is an intuitive test of fairness, in the same way that we try to ensure a fair division of cake by making
sure that the person who cuts it does not know which piece she will get.

29 As Rawls says, One should not be misled, then, by somewhat unusual conditions which characterize
the original position. The idea here is simply to make vivid to ourselves the restrictions that it seems
reasonable to impose on arguments for principles of justice, and therefore on these principles
themselves. Thus it seems reasonable and generally accepted that no one should be advantaged or
disadvantaged by natural fortune or social circumstance in the choice of principles. It also seems widely
agreed that it should be impossible to tailor principles to the circumstances of ones own caseIn this
manner the veil of ignorance is arrived at in a natural way.

6. The original position is intended to represent

equality between human beings as moral
persons.30
a. Should be looked as an expository
device for summing up the meanings of
our notions of fairness and to help
extract the consequences.
7. Rawls argument is about a hypothetical contract
being the way of embodying a certain
conception of equality, and about a way to
extract the consequences of that conception for
the just regulation of social institutions.
a. By removing the sources of bias and
requiring unanimity, Rawls hopes to find
a solution that is acceptable to everyone
from a position of equality.31

30 The resulting principles of justice are those which people would consent to as equals when none are
known to be advantaged by social and natural contingencies.

31 A solution that respects each persons claim to be treated as a free and equal being