The document discusses John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness. It explains that under the original position, people behind a veil of ignorance would agree to two principles: 1) Equal liberty for all and 2) Social and economic inequalities must benefit society's least well-off and arise from fair equality of opportunity. The difference principle holds that redistribution of wealth is justified if it improves the situation of the worst-off group. The document provides a simplified example comparing utilitarian, egalitarian, and Rawlsian approaches to distributing resources between two people.

1. CriticalThinking About Moral Problems
Dr. Marx

2.  His opening question: How do we determine the most
fundamental principles of justice upon which to organize society?
 The basic answer: By envisioning what reasonable people would
agree to if they had to sit down and hammer out an agreement.
 He calls this hypothetical situation the “Original Position”
 The problem: People can be self-interested, and might tend to
favor their own family, friends, economic class, etc.
 The solution: Envision what reasonable people would agree to if
they had to abstract away from their own personal situations.
 The Device: The Veil of Ignorance
 Imagine what principles they would apply for one and all if they did not know their
potential or actual
▪ natural abilities
▪ education and skills
▪ economic position
▪ Race, gender, sexuality, etc.
▪ etc

3. First Principle: Liberty
 Each person is to have an equal right to the most
extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible
with a similar system of liberty for all.
Second Principle: Wealth (The “Difference Principle”)
 Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so
that they are both:
a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged
b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions
of fair equality of opportunity.

4.  This is usually interpreted to mean that the most just
distribution of resources is the one where the “worst-
off” group is better off than in any alternative scenario.
 Consider the (extremely oversimplified) situation where
a society has two members, A and B. Suppose there are
three options for distributing units of wealth.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
A 40 10 2o
B 5 10 15

5.  A utilitarian might prefer option 1, because is
maximizes the combined holdings of A and B.
 A strict egalitarian would most likely prefer B,
because both A and B get the same amount.
 Rawls would prefer option 3, because that’s
where the least well-off party, B, is best off.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
A 40 10 2o
B 5 10 15

6.  Redistribution of wealth might be warranted
as a matter of justice.
 Equality of opportunity may be insufficient to
achieve economic justice – such inequality
may lead to wildly different outcomes for
parties with the same opportunities.
 There are limits to the pursuit of economic
equality – we might get to the point where
further redistribution will make all parties
worse off.

7.  Distributive Justice is “historical”, not a matter of “end
results.”
 According to Nozick, justice in holdings is defined by
three simple principles.
1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with
the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that
holding.
2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with
the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else
entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding.
3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated)
applications of 1 and 2.