Justice 7th Session Copy

Business Ethics & CSRSession # 7

Naeem ASHRAF

Spring, 2015

SDSB, LUMS

Justice

What Is Justice?

3

What Is Justice?*

Justice includes both retributive justice, which looks at how fair punishments are, and distributive justice, which looks at how societies distribute social, political and economic benefits, such as jobs, and economic burdens, such as taxes.

Embedded in any answer to the question of how these things should be distributed is a principle of distributive justice this is an assumption about the proper way of distributing what is available when there isnt enough for all.

4* Velasquez, M. 2011. Philosophy: A text with readings. CENGAGE

Distributive Justice

5

Principles of Distributive Justice

Fundamental/Formal

distribute benefits and burdens equally to equals and unequally to unequals

Egalitarian

distribute equally to everyone

Capitalist/Merit

distribute according to contribution

Socialist

distribute according to need and ability

Libertarian

Welfare liberalism

distribute by equal liberty, equal opportunity, and needs of disadvantaged.

Classic liberalism

distribute by free choices

6* Velasquez, M. 2012. Business Ethics: Concepts and cases. CENGAGE

Formal Justice

Aristotle articulated one of the earliest principles of distributive justice, known as formal justice.

Formal justice is the requirement that we should treat similar people similarly.

For example, if Jack and Jill, carry the same amount of water for us, then we should pay them the same. We should not pay Jack more merely because he is a man.

Neither should we pay Jill more merely because her skin is white and Jack's is not.

This raises the question: when should we consider people to be the same?


What is a Relevant Difference?

On the one hand, the formal principle of justice tells us something about what justice and injustice are if we agree about what counts as relevant difference and what doesnt.

On the other hand, the formal principle of justice does not settle all the issues, because there can be disagreement about what counts as a relevant difference.

There have been many conceptions of relevant differences among people, -- these are called material or substantive principles of justice.


Material Justice

A number of accounts of material justice, each with a different notion of relevant difference have been defended, including:

Justice as Equality

Justice as Merit

Justice as Based on Need and Ability

Justice as Based on Liberty

Welfare Liberalism and Classical Liberalism



Fundamental/Formal


Egalitarian


Capitalist/Merit


Socialist


Libertarian

Welfare liberalism


Classic liberalism



Justice as Equality

Equal means the same.

In the US, this idea of justice is intuitively plausible.

It is widely believed that everyone is entitled to roughly the same kind of basic education, that the sexes and races should be treated the same, that individuals should be treated the same before the law, etc.

One reason slavery is rejected on principle because it violates our belief that everyone is equal.

But what does the commitment to equality imply?


Strict Egalitarianism

According to strict egalitarianism equality, in a just society, implies that every person will be given exactly equal shares of that societys benefits and burdens.

Egalitarians say there are no relevant differences among people, so all should be treated equally.

Pick one area of society (e.g., employment, education) and determine how this principle would change that aspect of society.


Questions about Equality

The main challenge for strict egalitarianism, is that people are not equal, and their inequalities seem to sometimes demand an unequal sharing in societys resources.

Human beings have different needs, different abilities, different desires, and different virtues. They put forward different efforts and have different skills and different physical abilities.

Dont we have to take these differences into account when we distribute benefits among people?


Moderate Egalitarianism

Some egalitarians respond to these criticisms by proposing a more moderate form of egalitarianism which hinges on a distinction between political equality and economic equality.

People have political equality when they have an equal right to participate in our political processes (e.g., a right to due process)

Moderate egalitarians argue that people should have strictly equal political rights.


Moderate Egalitarianism In applying equality to the economic arena, moderates

make a distinction between equality of income and wealth, and equality of economic opportunity.

Moderate egalitarians argue against making everyones income and wealth equal, although some differences among people have to be recognized when distributing income and wealth.

On the other hand, moderate egalitarians continue, everyone should have an equal opportunity to get those jobs and positions that carry higher levels of income and wealth.



Fundamental/Formal


Egalitarian


Capitalist/Merit


Socialist


Libertarian

Welfare liberalism


Classic liberalism



Justice as Merit

Justice as merit holds that benefits and burdens should be distributed unequally according to peoples ability, effort, achievement, or social status.

From the perspective, the main relevant difference among people is merit: what people deserve in light of their talents and achievements.

This view plays an important role in many of our perceptions of justice.

Can you think of any examples of this sort of justice?


18

THANKS !

Justice 7th Session Copy

Documents

Transcript of Justice 7th Session Copy