Introduction to Political Philosophy

Political philosophy is similar to ethics, what I call “ideal behavior theorizing” in that it is fueled by a great deal of controversy and it also raises ethical dilemmas; but the questions in political philosophy center on the community/society rather than on just the individual. The main questions are: “How should we best organize ourselves?” and “What is justice?” I like to call this “ideal state theorizing.” The question may have occurred to you, “Why are we concerned with political philosophy in a business ethics course?” Well, the answer is because it is the structure of the state that will in large part predict the ways in which we conduct our business affairs. The state provides the regulations for trade and it either promotes or restricts the way business is conducted. Also, there are important questions regarding the extent and the kinds of regulations that we employ as well as government’s role in a capitalist society. This is of particular importance now because the current administration is bailing out a number of brokerages, banks, and mortgage lenders. Our study of business ethics will be greatly enhanced by understanding the basic concepts and ideas of political philosophy. In this section of material, we will look at several main models:

1.) a free market—no/minimal restrictions on trade and competition

2.) a socialist market—a transitional stage of society in Marxist theory, between capitalism and communism; typically a market where rights are amplified to cover things like healthcare and employment.

3.) communist market—this is the final stage of society in Marxist theory, where the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed fairly and equitably.

We are in a free market—a market where the price of goods and services is determined by largely unregulated supply and demand. The main ideas of a free market are that trade should be voluntary and free from force and fraud. The government should minimally intervene—if at all—and should be limited to a regulatory role—levying taxes only to maintain the market. Some free market advocates oppose taxation altogether, for example Nozick, who compares taxation to a form of theft. Some questions related to political philosophy that we will consider are: What is a fair society? Who owns what? Who gets what? What is justice?

Justice is one of the most important terms for political philosophy. The concept of justice will act as a kind of anchor as we try to understand and hash out the various theories of state. John Rawls in his epic work on political philosophy—A Theory of Justice—commenting on the importance of justice for political philosophy says “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is to systems of thought.” There are two senses of justice that we will be concerned with, distributive and retributive. Distributive justice is concerned with how and according to what principles society’s goods should be distributed. How should the goods in society be fairly distributed? While retributive justice involves payback for a crime and how to deal with criminals and those who go against the society. For example, the Supreme Court recently ruled that it is illegal to execute someone for the crime of child rape.

To answer the question about how to fairly distribute goods let’s look at a few scenarios. Imagine that you are a parent with four children and you have a pie to divvy up. How would you fairly distribute the pie to your children? Would you slice up the pie equally? Or would you think of some other way to divvy up the pie? Read the story in the text—148 -149—about a group of soldiers who are defending a fort and need water. They must venture 200 yards under fire to get some and a small group sneaks out to get the water. They succeed and return to the fort with some water; and they are now left with the task of deciding how the water should be distributed. There are several ways to begin to think about how to distribute the water—and the pie:

1.) Based on merit—the ones who went to get the water deserve it because they risked their lives.

2.) Based on need—some soldiers have been in the fort longer or are ill and thus have greater need for the water.

3.) Based on equality—some think that fairness demands that everyone get the same amount of water.

It is important to note that the scenario is quite different from ordinary life. This is a military outfit, so the rules of fairness that apply here may not exactly transfer to civil society. A military outfit has a greater sense of unity and camaraderie and they are all working towards an identifiable goal; while in larger society, there may be no such goal. But in terms of bringing a certain understanding and shedding light on the question of justice, it is a great metaphor. All of the philosophers we will look at in this section will be guided by what they think is just or unjust. And it will be interesting to see the many ways which you all think about justice/injustice. The topics and philosopher we will look at in this section are:

1st Plato and The Republic—this is the text where we find Plato’s version of utopia—which means literally “best place”. Plato will find problems with the flat notion of justice as well as with the idea of proportional justice, but at the same time he will not give up on the concept altogether. Instead he will propose a new way of seeing justice that is not based on either, but rather on the proper positioning of the members in a society according to their birth/talent.

2nd John Locke and social contract theory, and his discussion of rights in general; Locke also has a very interesting definition of property—it is a basic right. Locke’s philosophy is of particular interest to the American system. In this section, we will talk about the distinction between a communitarian and an individualist.

3rd Karl Marx, who believes that surplus property is the source of conflict in society and what initially led to the exploitation by those who have over those who have not. Marx challenges capitalism and makes us questions the idea that capitalism is the best system. He takes an historical approach to describing what he sees as the ideal state.

4th Adam Smith and Andrew Carnegie, defenders of wealth and of the free market. Smith and Carnegie are staunch supporters of individualism and prominent capitalists. Many people take Smith’s views as obvious truths for business and the way that society ought to be organized. One of his main ideas, the so called ‘invisible hand’ is based on the belief that the best society comes when people act, not for charity or based on the concern for others, but rather in their own self-interest. He says that a grocer sells a wide variety of foods because by doing so it will attract more customers and maximize its profits people benefit from having a variety of goods available at competitive prices. According to Smith, buying and selling is not about being nice; customers want the most they can get for their cash, and the seller wants to maximize her profits.

5^th John Rawls and Robert Nozick Rawls will advance a fresh version of the social contract; his version is based on a public conception of justice—rather than a trade of liberty for security—and it will involve a condition for having the privilege of wealth and power; if you succeed, then you must be burdened with carrying a larger portion of social responsibility. Nozick stands in distinction to Rawls and is going to state that the minimal state is the most extensive state justifiable and that there is no fair way to redistribute what someone has legitimately earned—comparing some forms of taxation to theft.

Platonic Political Philosophy

Plato has been called the Philosopher King for his idea that the philosopher was ideally suited to be the leader in his visionary polis. In assessing the impact Plato has had on Western philosophy, one thinker commented that “All philosophy since is but a footnote to Plato.” Plato founded the Academy, the first university in Western Europe. In the Republic we find Plato's version of utopia—the best place. It is what I call a mystical vision of the polis. The just and harmonious polis is the one that mirrors the soul. In the Republic, Plato tries to answer the questions: What is the ideal state & what is justice? In the section from the Republic that I have assigned for you all, opens with the scene of a party with a number of interesting people: notably Socrates & Thrasymachus. Remember, Socrates—the absolutist and Thrasymachus—the Sophist, are at odds with each other and give Plato the perfect opportunity to advance his argument. At this party, the guests are attempting to define justice.

The first definition of justice given is that justice is the payment of debt. The problem is quickly identified: Are there not situations where it is not right to give someone what they are due? For example, if a friend gives you her keys and then becomes intoxicated, it seems wrong for you to return her keys. The example that Plato gives regards returning a cache of weapons that a friend has deposited with you. Is it just to return the cache of weapons your friend has left with you if he comes to retrieve them while in state of madness? This attempt at defining justice does not consider circumstances—and is a “flat” definition, like cutting a pie up equally and distributing it to your children. What about the child who was obedient that day? Or the child who has a weight problem? You would not want to give these children an equal slice would you?

The second definition considers circumstances and it goes, “pay good to those who are good & evil to those who are evil.” This represents an enhancement of the first definition and this perfectly illustrates Socrates’ dialectic method.[1] The problem with this definition is that we misjudge—it is possible to treat good people badly and bad people well. We at times take people to be our friends that are actually our enemies and vice versa.

The third definition is given by Thrasymachus who is reported to have “rose up like a wild beast.” He was apparently tired of listening to Socrates going after the Truth. Thrasymachus says that justice is nothing more or less than “the advantage of the stronger” and says further that the “Unjust always get more than the just in any given situation.” I think the definition that Thrasymachus is giving is based on his assessment of human nature. He thinks that humans do what is in their own best interests rather than following some abstract sense of fair/unfair; I see Thrasymachus “definition” as an attempt to try and understand the kind of beings that we are rather than an attempt to get at the heart of some abstract definition. So as to support his case, Thrasymachus talks about a shepherd—named Gyges—and how sheppards are often portrayed as gentle and lovingly watching out for their flocks. He says this may be true, but it is limited because it ignores one important fact: the sheppard does care for and love his animals, but only to eventually butcher them.

Thrasymachus also refers to an old legend about the so called Gyges Ring. This is the story of sheppard who finds a ring that gives him the power of invisibility.[2] Thrasymachus makes the point that if there were two of these rings and they made their way into the hands of a just man and an unjust man that eventually their actions would become the same— self centered and corrupt.

Plato, using the voice of Socrates, recognizes the trouble with what Thrasymachus is saying and instead of challenging it, comes to a pragmatic definition. He concludes that justice is every man woman and child in their proper place. Justice involves a polis that is divided into three classes: rulers, guardians, artisans, which corresponds to the souls three parts—the rational, the spirited, and the appetitive parts,. All in their proper place leads to harmony and peace. “The original principle which we were always laying down at the foundation of the state, that one man should practice one thing only, the thing to which his nature was best adapted —now justice is this principle or a part of it.” In Platonic justice--each member of the polis performs their proper function: a carpenter does carpentry, while a ruler rules; a physician practices the medical arts, while a slave serves. When one of the members of the polis moves beyond their boundaries, then injustice will result. What makes the soul peaceful is the same thing that makes city peaceful. These reflect some of the ancient Greek ideals of balance and symmetry.

The question arises as to how this will be taken in and believed by the people. Here Plato proposes an ELABORATE ORIGIN LEGEND. The rulers will perpetuate a “noble lie”, an “audacious fiction” so as to enforce people’s place in society. The lie is that the division of the population into different sections - rulers, guards, artisans, is not due to their upbringing or education, but rather to the gold, silver, bronze, or iron put into their souls by the gods.

There is the story of an oil rig, on page 221 of our text. It is the story about one of three exploratory rigs along the coast of Angola that houses 120 local workers—in the Angolan section—and is comprised of unskilled workers; while 30 expats in space of the same size. Read this story and see evaluate how it mirrors Plato’s utopia and how it does not. Is this fair? In the expat section there is a galley, game room, and a movie room. The Angolans can’t enter these rooms unless they work there as cleaners. The Angolans travel to the oil rig by boat and I takes them 18 hours. The expats on the other hand travel there by helicopter and it takes them less than 1 hour to reach the rig. The expats have the same budget for their meals as do the Angolans, which means their meals are gourmet. Is there not a central theme here in Plato and the oil rig that some people are better than other, or at least better positioned than others? How do we reconcile between the intrinsic value of a persona and their instrumental value? These ideas are going to have an impact on later writers and thinkers. Are we defined by what we do? What is the distinction between those at the top and those at the bottom? ON the oil rig, there is vastly different treatment between the two classes. Is it that some just work harder thus deserve more? Class here in America? Move up? Do people have talents that make them special?

John Locke and others on Property

In this section of material we will discuss what it means to own property. This material is of present interest given the recent sub prime debacle. First we will look at John Locke and review his ideas on human rights and the concept of property. John Locke is what is referred to as a social contractarian. Social contract theory is based on the idea that people enter into civil society because they understand it to be more advantageous for them to do so rather than live in the state of nature. Thomas Hobbes is generally considered the first drafter of this theory and he paints a rather negative picture of what humans are like outside of the bonds of civil society. Locke questioned the legitimacy of the monarchy in England and was lauded as the philosopher of freedom here in the United States. He has been called, “the spiritual father of the US constitution.” Ironically, John Locke was said to have invested in the slave trade.[3]

Locke’s main ideas are that:

1) a legitimate government requires the consent of the governed

&

2) the task of government is to protect man's natural rights: life, liberty, estate (property)

In Lockean philosophy the individual is primary & sacred. Locke lays the foundations of liberal society. But there is an important distinction that is raised when considering liberal society: what is the difference between an individualist and a communitarian?

a.) an individualist—philosophically speaking—is someone who is concerned with the strength of the individual

b.) a communitarian on the other hand, is someone who is concerned with the strength of the community

The differences between the two are subtle but fundamental. Where do you stand? Which one do you think is more important? It seems one can’t hold them both as equally important. It seems that one must gravitate and hold one or the other as prior.

Next we come to the question of property and what makes a piece of land one’s property? First Locke says that it is a fact that we all own our own bodies; this is consistent with his idea that we have the right to life and liberty. Secondly, we own the labor that proceeds from our bodies. (158) So land “lying in waste” becomes ours by “mixing our labor” with it and by fencing that land off, “cordoning off the land.” He says further that, “By mixing labor with the land the provisions produced by one acre of enclosed and cultivated land –far outweighs land lying in waste.” Locke also makes two conditions for land ownership on page 159

1.) use the land before it spoils and 2.) leave as much as good for others

Let us briefly contrast Locke on land ownership with some other philosophers:

For Marx, surplus property is the source of class conflict in society and results in the

oppression by the haves of the have-nots.

For JJ Rousseau, to think that one could own the earth was preposterous. He said, “The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'this is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society.” and further, “How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one.” Discourse on Inequality, 1755

Karl Marx and Communism

Karl Marx along with Friedrich Engels prepared the Communist Manifesto in 1848. This was the first statement of principles of the Communist League. One of the main points they make in this text is that, “Philosophers have only interpreted the world—the point is to change it.” They believed the world should be changed from what they saw—men in chains—to a world that would facilitate human self-realization.

Marx is contra Locke in that he believes that owning property is not a right, but rather the source of conflict in society. Marx believes that property ownership creates class conflict, and thinks that a classless society is the ideal. According to Marx, in the communist state, the proletariat—the workers—will come into power and seize property and the means of production. After a period of stability, they will then relinquish what they have seized and property will be owned communally. Marx called on the workers to revolt by telling them that they have, “nothing to lose but your chains and a world to win.” He called on, “Working men of all countries unite!” Let us briefly list some of the features of a free-market and a communist market:

free market virtues nurtured: individuality, incentive/initiative, competitiveness, independence

communist market virtues nurtured: community, interdependence, equality, humanity

Karl Marx asked the question, “What is human nature?” He thought we needed a concept of human nature to begin to think about how to best organize ourselves. In answering this question, Marx was similar to Aristotle in that he saw humans as deeply social and concluded like Aristotle, that we are the kind of beings that need the state. So as to understand our nature with greater depth, Marx said that we must recognize our “Species Being.” For an animal, a species being is its characteristic activity. For example bees build hives, beavers build dams, etc. (169) But for humans, our characteristic activity is to create; we are the beings with an aesthetic impulse. Marx furthermore says that this human activity is not a means to some end, but rather is an end in itself. This is somewhat contrary to the way capitalists see human activity: as a means to produce something of value.

Marx says the problem with this is that when one sees human activity as a means and not as an end, then as workers, one becomes alienated—that is one’s life activity becomes only a means for existence. Roughly speaking, this is Marx concept of “Alienation” and it refers to making our labor a means for existence rather than an end in itself. The worker becomes a commodity as his labor can be quantified in terms of output and becomes only a tool for producing wealth; and not his own wealth, but the wealth of his boss. Furthermore, alienation refers to isolating a worker from the product of his labor and also when the labor only goes towards satisfying his physical needs. Marx says that work is so horrible for the laborer, that when they have time off, they avoid work like the plague.

Marx wonders if things were always like this and asks the questions: How did this happen? How did some people become reduced to this kind of oppression? To help answer this question Marx employs the “historical method.” This is where one uses history as a tool for predicting where things are going. During Marx period, you see a number of philosophers employing this method; many are grappling with history to see if the past can give us clues as to what’s to come. For Marx, the historical progression of society amounts to the strong exploiting the weak. He outlines this progression in what has commonly become known as The Five Epochs of History and says that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.” Marx notes that material goods are necessary to human existence and they are the primary force which determines social life.

In the first epoch, known as the Primitive Communal Epoch, Marx surmised that people lived in small tribes and produced material on their own for their own needs and acts of exchange were isolated. The means of production in this period were limited to hunting/gathering and objects of exchange limited to fortuitous surplus.[4]

These were small, self-sufficient and loving communities where privately owned property was minimal. But according to Marx, later tribes turned to agriculture and this gave them an ability to predict surplus. That which was not consumed became surplus and in turn had to be stored. For Marx, herein lie the roots of the instability in society. Basically Marx point is that he who has control over the surplus has the power over other people. This power to control the surplus creates an imbalance in society and leads to the eventual monopoly of accumulated wealth by a minority and leads to the rise of classes of the kind we find in the world today.

The second epoch Marx refers to the Slave Epoch or the ancient mode of production. This amounts to the sheer domination of the strong over weak and one finds a “natural” justification for slavery. As Aristotle writes, some men are marked by their birth to rule while others to serve. Here men are owned by other men—slaves laboring while their masters profit. Here free labor replaced by slave exploitation. The third epoch is called the Feudal Epoch and it is similar to the slave epoch. Instead of masters/slaves, there are now landlords and serfs. Land was parceled out by the landlords to the serfs whom worked the land partly as slaves and partly for compensation.

One of the most interesting and important epochs for Marx is the Capitalist Epoch where the late 18th century event—called the Industrial Revolution—accounted for an important shift in the way that goods were produced. During the Industrial Revolution, workers moved from farms and small cottages industry to factories; here the power dynamic is expressed in terms of the bourgeois—the owners of production and the proletariat—the laborers. This is the epoch where the minority capitalist class controls the means of production and uses that control to exploit a new slave class--the wage earners.

Marx envisions the final epoch—the Communist Epoch—as an epoch that moves away from one man exploiting another and an epoch that restores humanity to self realization—a place of classlessness and a place where all humans can actualize their aesthetic impulses. He proposes a society with the following main characteristics:

1.) common ownership of production

2.) product goes back to producer

3.) ends ruling class exploitation

This epoch will restore man to himself and it amounts to the end of history. (163) According to Marx, the struggle between classes will end and there will be no more conflict to impel humanity into another epoch. We will have gained societal equilibrium. One of the main hopes of communism is to overcome distributive injustice and to provide material abundance. All will voluntarily contribute and all will be satisfied. A new sense of justice will emerge: from each—according to ability and to each—according to need.

When the communists gain power some of the main changes will be the following:

1. abolition of property in land

2. abolition of inheritance

3. centralized credit

4. production in the hands of the state

5. free education for all children

Carnegie and Smith

Both Andrew Carnegie and Adam Smith are staunch defenders of the free market. In these notes I am going to briefly survey some of the main points on both of these thinkers.

First let’s begin with Andrew Carnegie. His life spanned from 1835 –1919. He was a

Scottish-born American businessman, the founder of Carnegie Steel Corp, and he was the architect of the most powerful and influential corporations in the history of the United States. Carnegie was a major philanthropist—late in life he gave away most of his riches to fund: libraries, schools, and universities. Carnegie was known for saying that a man who dies wealthy dies shamefully. In his essay Wealth, Carnegie defends capitalism and justifies social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is the application of the ideas of natural selection to competition among humans in business.

Andrew Carnegie’s justification of wealth:

a.) wealth allows us to attain higher levels of civilization

b.) without wealth there can be no refinement

c.) the poor benefit because they can now afford what the rich previously could not

d.) the position of the laborer is comfortable

e. ) and they are not alienated as Marx asserts

According to Carnegie, competition comes at a high cost, but its advantages are great:

competition brings great technological advancement and even if we wanted to, we could not. Carnegie says, “no substitutes for it have been found” “even though it may be hard for some” Carnegie says further that “capitalism produces the highest kind of person” and that inequality is essential for the progress of the human race. Carnegie makes the point that there is no middle ground: that a person is either progressing or regressing.

Carnegie argues against socialism. He says, “the socialist is to be regarded as attacking the foundations upon which civilization lies.” Carnegie, somewhat paradoxically has a strong opinion against certain forms of charity. Although he did give away most of his money to finance schools, museums, libraries, and others, Carnegie took a bit of a hard nose when it came to slackers. He said, “you should look upon your fellow slacker and say: if you don’t work you won’t eat.” “If thou does not sow, thou shalt not reap.” Carnegie said that it was “better to throw millions into the sea than to spend it encouraging the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy.” 167 I think this is interesting coming from a man who was so charitable with his money. A note of interests is that Carnegie did not believe in inheritance and so his children and other family members did not get a chance to experience his wealth. Carnegie had an interesting relationship to his money. I guess if I were to say what it was in a nutshell it would be this. You should work as hard as you can and take care of your community. And the money that you invest in the community should be used as an incentive to produce an even greater and affluent society.

A quote from Carnegie’s memoirs:

“Man does not live by bread alone. I have known millionaires starving for lack of the nutriment which alone can sustain all that is human in man, and I know workmen, and many so-called poor men, who revel in luxuries beyond the power of those millionaires to reach. It is the mind that makes the body rich. There is no class so pitiably wretched as that which possesses money and nothing else. Money can only be the useful drudge of

things immeasurably higher than itself. My aspirations take a higher flight. Mine be it to have contributed to the enlightenment and the joys of the mind, to the things of the spirit, to all that tends to bring into the lives of the toilers of Pittsburgh sweetness and light. I hold this the noblest possible use of wealth.”

Adam Smith, is also a defender of the free market and he provides one of the most articulate and best-known intellectual defenses for free trade, capitalism, and libertarianism. Smith’s life spanned the period 1723 -1790. He was an economist and moral philosopher. In his work, “Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” Smith presents us with one of the earliest attempts to study the historical development of industry and commerce in Europe. In this text, he draws a link between: self-interest and community. One of his main and most popular points is that by following your self-interests you will promote the best communal results. Smith says, “he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” This is Smith’s famous theory of the invisible hand. The basic idea is that by acting in one’s own self-interest, one benefits society overall. He says that the grocery store sells a wide variety of meats and products because by doing so it is going to attract more customers and maximize its profits. People benefit from having a variety of goods on offer at competitive prices. No one is being nice here—customers want the most they can get for their cash, and the store is trying to maximize its returns to its owners.

So for Smith, self interest is where it is at. That being said, Smith thinks that we do have constant need for each other and it is in our interests to show how it is to another’s advantage to help (157). However, nobody, Smith says, but a beggar depends chiefly on benevolence. According to Smith one cannot count on human benevolence. Rather it is better to show others that there is a personal advantage to their helping us. Basically what he is saying is that we have to show others “what is in it for them.” As evidence for this Smith says that even beggars barter and trade what they have for what they want. For example: they will trade donated clothes for food or booze.

Along the lines of what Carnegie says, Smith thinks that everyone should work the best he/she can to improve his/her condition. According to Smith, the market works best without being shaped or directed. This is a very strong and cogent point. Smith makes the stronger point that even if we wanted to direct the market, no one would have the knowledge to able to properly direct it anyway. Smith says, “The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.” This is clearly Smith’s argument against central distribution and what will become later on known as communism.

Smith also discusses the distribution of talent. His basic idea is that talent is naturally distributed among people. He says that by working together and dividing labor, people can produce a great amount. Smith believes that humans recognize the value of cooperation and that “the advantageous division of labor arises from the human tendency to bargain and exchange.” Again, for Smith, the best results in society are achieved through individuals working from self-interest. Compare this with JS Mill who thinks we should care about others as much as ourselves and act to promote their welfare—remember the “greatest happiness for the greatest number of people from the section on utilitarianism. Do you think that Smith’s ideas are compatible with Mill’s? Why or why not?

John Rawls 1921--2002

John Rawls served in the US Army and WWII and was one of the first to witness the aftermath of the attack on Hiroshima. He spent 40 years as a Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University. Rawls book The Theory of Justice single handedly revived serious writing & interest in political philosophy. Also, he revives the idea of social contract that began with Hobbes and Locke. But rather a rights based approach, like Locke, Rawls is going to focus on the project of coming together via a public conception of justice.

Rawls is concerned with Adam Smith’s view of capitalism; that individuals acting out of self-interest are rewarded by the market for their contributions and that this brings about the fairest of situations. Rawls is going to disagree and calls into question our ready acceptance of the notion of personal ability and accomplishment. According to Rawls, reality suggests that some benefit from privileges that they did not earn, and correspondingly, others suffer from no fault of their own. His basic idea is that we should not have these accidents of life harm our potential. Rawls says that society is marked by identity & conflict of interests, but we recognize the advantages of working together. Also, we are not oblivious to the share our neighbor has & we want a greater share for our efforts.

Rawls proposes his own version of social contract theory. Social contract is the foundational idea that states to create a society we trade liberty for security. The idea of “state of nature” began with Hobbes but by the end of the 18th century it was declining. John Rawls proposed a new and invigorated way to see “state of nature” and “social contract theory.” Compare two social contract theorists: For Hobbes—power rests in the hands of the sovereign—he commands & backs up by force. He overawes. For Locke—legitimate government requires the consent of governed. When government is no longer acting on my behalf and protecting my rights, then I may revolt. There is no such proviso in the Hobbesian social contract.

What is a fair system for Rawls? One that is well-ordered; one that is guided by the public conception of justice and one that advances the good of its members. But the question is how do we get to a public conception of justice? It can’t be based on a version of the good life, because we all disagree as to what that is. Instead, we try and focus on what we might have in common and we get to that by getting behind the “veil of ignorance.” The veil of ignorance is a thought experiment that shows us how to decide on the rules of justice. The veil is expository because it allows us to work out principles of justice by giving a standpoint. Here is how it works: the members of a society gather in a meeting room where no one knows who they are—whether they are rich, poor, healthy, sick, male, female, etc. According to Rawls, it is behind the veil that one will choose rules and principles that are fair. The veil is intended to blind us to self-interests; since everyone is equally ignorant of their place in society and because everyone would want to avoid a terrible fate, people will decide on laws that provide a safety net in the event that fate had dealt them a bad hand.

According to Rawls, from the veil of ignorance, two principles of justice will prevail:

1) The Liberty Principle--equality in assignment of basic rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, due process of law. Individuals have rights, and these are trumps over the social good. In this regard, Rawls is clearly anti-utilitarian.

2) The Difference Principle--inequalities in wealth and social position are to be arranged so as to benefit the least advantaged groups. Justice requires that everyone's position be improved. A state cannot and should not stop people from gaining wealth. In this regard Rawls is contra Marx. But the difference principle tries to account for unfair advantages/privileges. The state must channel wealth back into society to help those at the bottom.

Against Rawls stands Nozick who says there should be no tax; you cannot make people give. It is a form of theft--particularly if my money is distributed to others in ways I would not choose and neither the state nor anyone has a right to take what is rightfully mine. For example, if I create a work of art, then the benefits should be mine because I produced it. The redistribution of goods is engaging in theft. If I did not rob or harm another—then I have no obligation to them. Please consult the text for the associated essay by Nozick.

---

[1] Dialectic is the method employed by Socrates for getting at the essence of a term and it involves question, response, and revision. First Socrates poses a question and his respondent always at first gives a reflexive answer without much thought; Socrates quickly shoots these responses down. Socrates then reposes the question and the respondent usually give s a better response; but it also eventually gets shot down. I see the Socratic Method as an intellectual way of narrowing and qualifying an idea.

[2] This legend became the inspiration for the book and movie series The Lord of the Rings.

[3] “Yet Locke himself had invested in the slave trade and drafted the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina (1669), which granted absolute power over slaves. This conflict is not Locke's alone; it represents the national conflict of theory and practice, of espousing freedom while profiting from the slave traffic.”

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/18century/topic_2/locke.htm

[4] surplus refers to having much more than what is required to live