PAMG2501

Political Thought and Analysis

Tutor: Dr. Larry Lai

Group 5 Seminar 4

GROUP MEMBERS DMU SID NO. CityU SCOPE SID NO.

Tse Ming Yin (Mabel) P16009287 51239788

Ip Sze Wai (Kevin) P16009333 54374261

Ho Ricky Anton (Ricky) P16008676 53117467

Lee Yuen Kei,Rita (Denise) P16008463 53123321

Lee Chi Chung (Johnny) P16006809 54768711

Chan Kwok Lok (Lok) P16006891 54769222

Ngai Lee Kuen (Immi) P16008401 54768599

Liu Chi Kwan (Eric) P16007039 54773597

 Contents

Part A – John Rawls

1. Ignorance Spawns Impartiality relates to Rawls’ Theory of Justice_______________ 3
2. Example of Rawls’ Theory______________________________________________ 3
3. Rawls’ Theory of Justice________________________________________________ 4
4. Rawls’ Two Principle of Distribution Justice________________________________ 4

Part B – Robert Nozick

5. Nozick’s Theory of Justice______________________________________________ 6
6. Self-Ownerships______________________________________________________ 6
7. Three Principle of Distribution Justice_____________________________________ 6
8. The Night-Watchman State______________________________________________ 7
9. Rejection of Taxation__________________________________________________ 7
10. Example of Nozick’s Theory____________________________________________ 8

Part C – Economic Competition & Exploitation

11. Economic Competition________________________________________________ 10
12. Exploitation_________________________________________________________ 10
13. Fair Competition not equal to Fee Competition_____________________________ 11
14. Competition existing Loser or Victim – Nozick VS Rawls____________________ 11
15. Economic Competition & Exploitation Apply in Rawls’ Theory of Justice_______ 13

Part D – Conclusion_____________________________________________________ 13
Ignorance Spawns Impartiality relates to Rawls’ Theory of Justice
In this part I would like to explain what Wolff means by the “Ignorance Spawn Impartiality”,
this concept from Wolff is pretty much similar to John Rawls ideas of “The veil of
ignorance”.

Jonathan Wolff quote Rawls ideas: first of all to make a hypothetical contract and this
contract have to be abstract from the real life. Because in a real life every one of us just
pursued and care about our own interest. And seldom care about the genuine public interest.
Therefore we have to place everybody in a so called the original position, to make sure all of
us are unaware about our own particular circumstances.

We are ignorance so that do not know how to be biased in our own favour and we are forced
to act impartially. We do not know our social status, gender, race, importantly we also
ignorance of our natural possession like abilities and strength.

Wolff used an example to explicitly explained this point of view, suppose in the not too far
future the supply of soccer referee are dries up, and there is a true of game between two
crews United and City. It is impossible to find a neutral referee at that moment, and the only
qualified referee is the manager of the United team, understandably City team object to this
proposal, in the meantime scientist has invented a drug, this drug can perfectly make the
manager of United forgot he is the manager of the team. Therefore this make the United team
manager to be an impartially referee in the game.(1)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Wolff Jonathan (1996) An introduction to political philosophy page 170 to 171

This example telling us that Rawls ’ theory of distributive justice (A Theory of Justice) is
based on the idea that society is a system of cooperation for mutual advantage between all of
us. Justice is the most essential political value and should be applies to all aspects of our
society, society is a matter of cooperation between equal for mutual advantage.

And so the principles of justice, Rawls thinks must be the principles that free and rational
persons concerned to further their own interests and would accept in an initial position of
equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association justice, then is fairness.
We need to eliminate any possible bias towards us, i.e. the rich or the poor, or the religious or
the atheist. (2)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Michael Lacewing article about Rawls and Nozick’s on justice

Rawls assume that we are to agree on these principles without knowing what our position in
society will be or what our idea of good is. The point of this “veil of ignorance”.

Rawls is not supposing that anyone is really made the decisions on this basis. It is just a
fictional hypothetical concept. The original position and the “veil of ignorance” is simply a
methodological device to help us state clear about the proper view of the principle of justice.

Rawls’ Theory of Justice

According to those principles in Rawls’ theory of Justice which created in “the original
position” under a “veil of ignorance”, maximum equal basic liberties and fair equality of
opportunity must be secured before implementing policies to raise the living standards of
worst off. Redistributed the wealth and resources of better off through progressive taxation,
social welfare, public education and health care etc. is in favour of redistributive economic
justice and welfare state liberalism.

Rawls believes that a just system of distribution should be based on considerations of equality
of rights and principle of fairness. He thinks that distributive justice is concerned with the
distribution of the benefits and burdens of economic activity among individuals in a society
which refers to the proper allocation of the goods assumed that members of society want,
such as rights, liberties, wealth, powers, material goods, opportunities and self-respect.

Two Principle of Distribution Justice

Rawls account of justice that a distribution is just if a society structure conformed under two
principles: Political justice/ Equal liberty principle, “each person is to have an equal right
to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others”; and Social
justice principle, “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
(a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage (i.e. the “Difference Principle”), and
(b) attached to offices open to all (i.e. the “Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity”).
Principle of Equal Liberty
It gives people a wide variety of rights and freedoms, including speech, press, religion and
the freedom to do as they please as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others.

Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity

Formal equal of opportunity means open competition for educational or employment
opportunities without discrimination, but it does not ensure a fair outcome for everyone, for
example, there is unfair advantage for children have wealthy and “well-connected” parents
than children from poor families.
Rawls advocates the “Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity” that people with similar
skills, abilities and motivation should have equal access to educational and economic
opportunities in regardless of their family background, sex, religion, etc. to remedy
inequalities and to ensure that everyone has the same native talent and ambition can have the
same prospects of success in competitions.

Difference Principle
It states that inequality cannot be justified unless it benefits the least advantaged people in the
society, i.e. people who born in poor families, with least natural talent or with the worst
lifetime luck. It allows inequality to exist as it has the effect that the least advantaged people
in society are materially better off than they would be under strict equality. It is designed to
soften or eliminate the economic/ social differences between people in some acceptable way,
but it is controversial as in a free market economy, the distribution of wealth has no
connection with social justice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference:
Jonathan Wolff, An Introduction to Political Philosophy, Chapter 5.
Robert L. Simon ed., The Blackwell Guide to Social and Political Philosophy, Chapter 3
Hugh Lafollette ed. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, Chapter 54 (written by Jonathan
Wolff)
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, 1971)
John Rawls, Political Liberalism (Columbia University Press, 1996)
http://contemporarythinkers.org/john-rawls/introduction/
http://slideplayer.com/slide/10002755/
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/49864/24-02Fall-2006/NR/
Nozick’s Theory of Justice
Robert Nozick, who is the important and influential political philosophers, against with John
Rawls. Nozick had his own Distribution Justice theory different with Rawls’s theory.

Self-Ownership:
Nozick focused on self-ownership right, which he think that human being is endowed with
free will, self-awareness and just rationally responsible for our ownself. Beside, people
should have an inherent dignity and no one allowed to own another person, even partially.

Three Principle of Distribution Justice

According to Nozick, he set a three (1) to (3) sets of rule to define justice holding

A principle of justice in acquisition

(1) “A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in
acquisition is entitled to that holding.” 1
For this rule, Nozick think that based on the self-ownership, each person owns his labor, and
can “mixing his labor” with a previously un-owned (no one has ever owned before) part and
resources from the natural world, thereby used to own it. For instance, the person do farm
work in field where no one owned ever. After the person farming, in result of the crops will
be acquired by the person according to the role one distributive justice.

A principle of justice in transfer

(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.” 2
Which can be simple defined that since the person owned the property and resource accord
with justice, they can exchange and gift its to the another person. The main important point
is that both party are also voluntary.

A principle of rectification of injustice

(3) No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of (1) and (2). [1](1)

1Robert Nozick, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 1. (Autumn, 1973), pp. 47 (Nozick
1974:152)
2Robert Nozick, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 1. (Autumn, 1973), pp.
47 (Nozick 1974:152)
"Some people steal from others, or defraud them, or enslave them, seizing their product and
preventing them from living as they choose, or forcibly exclude others from competing in
exchanges" 3

This rule fix everyone should observe, (repeated) rule one and two. For example, people’s
property theft by someone and sold to the third party. While the thief was arrested, he would
be responded to compensate money and property to the both victim.

No one is entitled to a holding except by 1-3.

The Night-Watchman State

The Night-Watchman State, similar with minimal state which is proposed by minarchists,
means that providing the minimum necessary functions to maintain the conditions of laissez-
faire capitalism. It is a state that only legitimate function like the maintenance of law and
order and law enforcement, and the only legitimate governmental institutions like the police,
military, courts and foreign affairs. Besides, also include the emergency-rescue departments
(such as the fire departments) and civil service, prisons, the judiciary, the executive, and the
legislatures as legitimate government functions.

Rejection of Taxation:
Based on Nozick’s distribution justice, it will expose his idea about taxation.
“Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor. Seizing the results of
someone's labor is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various
activities.” 4

Nozick thinks that no state should do more extensive than a minimal state, which should only

protect individuals from force, theft and fraud, can be morally justified, therefore, Nozick

believes that taxation is required just for funding the activities for the minimal state and

should be nothing else. On the other hand, he believes that if you are forced to pay the taxes

3Ch. 7 : Distributive Justice, Section I, Redistribution and Property Rights, p. 169 - Anarchy,
State, and Utopia (1974)
4Nozick, R. (1974) Anarchy, State, and Utopia Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
for a percentage from what you have earned from your laboring, including by your body, you

are forced to labor for someone else because a percentage of your earnings or product of

labor and property which is taken from you but against your will and also used for other

purposes, that taxation for any purpose beyond funding the minimal state for example

scientific research, welfare, social insurance which is morally illegitimate. “Individuals have

rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their

rights)”1 He thinks that it violates the rights for property and self-ownership including people

physical bodies and labor since he think that people should have the rights to property and

their rights to self-ownership. Besides, people should have their freedom to decide what they

want to do (the ways to use their labor) and also what they own (property). He thinks each

person is an individual, so we should respect each other autonomy and people are ‘ends-in-

themselves’ with self-awareness, the state should not use them in the ways they do not agree

to.

At the following part, I will use some examples to interpret Nozick’s theory of justice.

(Example 1) There are many fishes in the sea which is not own to anyone, a fishman use his
labor to catch the fishes and becomes his property, and the fishman use the fish to exchange
money with others by voluntary exchange with mutual agreement later, based on the above
condition, it fits for the Nozick’s theory of justice. But taxation from earnings violates the
individual right of self-ownership since the state is disturbing a property right of the
individual.

(Example 2) Wilt Chamberlain argument, suppose that the allocation of a certain theory of
non-qualification is achieved (whatever you think is most reasonable) and is called the
distribution point D1. In D1, or that everyone has an equal share, or everyone has a different
share of what you think, that doesn't matter. Now, let us imagine a basketball star
Chamberlain (Wilt Chamberlain), his amazing skills got lots of fans to support, but also a lot
of basketball team rushing to sign with him, finally he and a formidable team signed a
contract. In this way, the season begins. Everyone is looking forward to the performance of
the team, to buy their tickets, and every time people buy tickets will be put in the box of
Chamberlain supporting with 25 dollars, hoping to see his wonderful skills.
Finally, there are a lot of people watching the game, and Chamberlain also won a prize of
$250 thousand. At this time, let us call this share of the flow of D1 to D2. Nozick would like
to point out that in D2, although Chamberlain's income is greater than the average income of
others, but he is not eligible for this income?
D1: Nozick argument is an assumption that he assumes that you can agree on a distribution of
property D1. This D1 program may be equal or other, anyway you can reckon with agree on a
satisfactory program.
D2: It is currently in the allocation of D1, there is a person called Chamberlain who played
basketball very well and held the ball game. You are willing to pay for tickets to watch the
game. As a result, he earn a lot of money by audiences who purchase tickets. However
audience’s property has reduced as they spend money to purchase tickets. Somehow, it is in
the unequal distribution of D2. D2's property status is unjust? Shouldn’t you be satisfied with
D2’s property?
Nozick's answer is no. The reason is you are on voluntary's choice to use your property.
Conversely, if the government is to take measures to adjust the state of D2 is a direct
violation of the two sides.
D2 is good for Chamberlain, because he pay lots of effort to earn it. The redistribution
infringes his rights. D2 is not advantage to audiences, but audiences are willing to authorize
payment fee, transferring of property to someone. If it has to be measured, you have to stop
the voluntary on authorize payment fee (interfere to stop people from transferring resources
as they wish to). Therefore, the redistribution of intervention in the D2 situation is at the
expense of human aggression. And if freedom is generally accepted as a priority in value, it
cannot be defended.
In the Chamberlain case, it can be allowed to hold the game. Other people can be free to buy
tickets, finally it appears property differentiation status of the D2, is on the D2 as a result of
state intervention rather than to the process of D2 interference. The free transfer of property
rights of the ticket buyer is in the process of leading to D2, but not in the state of D2 as a
result. Therefore, the intervention of the results of the D2 does not interfere with the right of
the person how to spend their property.
Reference: Anarchy, State and Utopia, the philosopher Robert Nozick (1974)
Economic Competition
In reality, winner of the economic competition is generally stand in a position which shown
the unfairness in the society (sometimes is not, such as Pure Lottery, this is fair competition).
It is because of they might have been born with the talents of the better strength and ability to
be or wealthy to give them a headstart, with using the resources to keep their winner position.
Furthermore, you might find that most of the industries are protected in some ways; they are
regulated and restricted by the law, like health and safety legislation and compliance from
related government parties. As such, by the law and fact, every existing producer or trader is
protected from competition and becomes a monopoly supplier. Frankly, the producer and
trader would feel more comfortable with a monopoly position. Since the winners are
enterprising can make better use of resources than rest of us, you may find it the important
thing about economic competition is not who win or loses but that enough people are playing
the game. Competition is seen as a fact of life, not a life enhancer.

As a person like you and me to be a consumers, we would like to see the competitive activity
to keeps prices down and quality up. As a result, the enterprise might seek the way to expand
their business and make the mentioned happened. The winner will become monopoly on that
field and the loser obvious to loss from his business. Corresponding with Wolff, whoever
achieves at the highest level of this scale is the winner, and is awarded by some sort of prize,
honour or their recognition.

Exploitation
Exploitation is making some sort of wrongful or unfair use of another person purely for your
own benefit. An exploiter is someone who use anothers weakness for their own ends, the
weakness of the person such are weak, poor, ignorant, dependent, ambition or avarice.

In addition, you might argue that if we all in a free competition, would we find the Justine of
fair in it? We value economic competition primarily because the process or activity of
competition can be benefited people outside the competition. Because we, the ordinary
consumers, benefit from the process of economic competition and are quite happy to
acquiesce in a system where people potentially do a great deal of harm to each other for our
benefit. Even though, we seems like out of the economic competition, we are potentially
exploiters.

As the matter of fact that we are potentially exploiters, but will be actual exploiters only if we
do not pay sufficient attention to the interests of those who may be harmed in the process of
creating cheaper or better goods for us. If we use economic competitors for our own good,
without concern for how they are affected, then we are exploiters. Exploitation does not
require actual harm to anyone. For example, fast fashion is a buzz trend in which aims to
design a clothing collection with a stylish and competitive price compare with the others. It is
hardly for that trader to create the manufacture line in the well developed countries. Since the
labour from the well developed country have the related social welfare policy or scheme to
protect their citizens. Thus, you might discover that that the manufacture origin from the tag
of the clothing normally come from the third world or undeveloped country. They are mostly
lack of social welfare policy to protect of their people. As said, the consumer cannot get away
from the loop of the economic competition as the exploiter. As the matter of fact that,
whoever the winner or the consumer in the economic competition. We are actually harm to
the loser from the small business or the victim of the labour from the undeveloped country.

Fair Competition not Equal to Free Competition

For Rawls, fair competition refers to people should compete with similar skills, abilities and
motivation in regardless of their family background, sex, religion etc. in a just economic
distribution society, but free competition refers to the freedom of people to produce, to trade
what he/she produce and for his/ her own self-interest. It is a market-based competition and
the result may influenced by people’s natural talents and abilities, fortune and social
circumstances. Rawls argues that it is injustice if people with least talent, abilities, bad
fortune or without family/ social background will become victims in such competition.

Competition existing Loser or Victim – Nozick VS Rawls

In Nozick's theory, Nozick rejects progressive taxation and welfare to the worst-off. He

believes in respect for individual rights is the key standard. He held strongly to the rights of

the individual, and advocated a minimal state which maintained law and order but did

nothing to redistribute wealth.

Also, he claimed that any government which forcibly rich people and redistributed their

wealth to help poor people was violating the liberty of the rich. He mentioned that taxation

should only bear the public expense, for example Law and Order, National defense and

Judiciary process but not including welfare. Nozick supposes that it is possible to determine

what governments should do by first asking individuals, taken a few at a time in isolation

from large-scale society and applying the resultant principles to all possible circumstances,

including those which involve billions of people.

Rawls believes that the Liberty Principle stated that each person has a right to the greatest

equal liberty possible. And it is hard to have full information of everything. People in the

original position are placed behind a 'veil of ignorance'. All citizens hope to have stable

society and living place.

Also, the stability of a society depends on the extent to which it is members feel that they are

being treated justly. If they come to feel that they are subject to unequal treatment, social

unrest is certainly near. Moreover, people must focus on their own problem first, because of

different social classes, jobs and values. If Nozick's theory applied, people would not have

opportunity to flow upward and the society would become unstable.

In Nozick's theory, it mention the poor are the losers, not victims. It do not involve any

injustice.

And Rawls' theory, it specially mention the poor are the victims because of different social

problems. And it involve social justice, so they have right to ask for compensation. The social

welfare system have voluntary to compensate to the victims.

References:
L. P. Francis and J. G. Francis, 'Nozick's Theory of Rights: A Critical Assessment' Western
Political Quarterly, 39 (1975) p. 634.
N. Cooper, 'Justice and Historical Entitlement', Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7 (1977), p.
799f.
J. Narveson, 'Anarchy, State and Utopica (sic)'; Dialogue 16 (1977) p. 298f.
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, 1971)
http://www.columbia.edu/~esp2/Two%20Letters%20on%20Rawls.pdf

Economic Competition & Exploitation Apply in Rawls’ Theory of Justice

Competition almost an external circumstance, particularly human factor, peoples always
blinded by their own self-interest, being prejudice and desire, there is against the Rawls’
theories with “Original Position” and “Veil of Ignorance”.

To rival the above unfairness happened; Rawls develop an approach to avoid this. In his
theory, of “Justice as Fairness”, he drew inspiration from a simple, paradigmatically “Fair
Distributive Method”, which contained two distinct principles:

The Principle of Greatest Equal Liberty, the Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity,
Difference Principle.

First, the principle of Greatest Equal Liberty which enjoys the first priority over the other
two, specifies that “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty
compatible with a similar liberty for others.” “Each person is having an equal right to such
liberties as the freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of political participation,
the right to private property, etc. as is compatible with everyone else equally enjoying these
freedoms.”

Part A of the second approach, the principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity requires that
offices ad positions be genuinely open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
The idea here is simply that each person should be able to compete on an even play field, so
that those with the same talents and motivation enjoy equal opportunities to assume positions
of power and prestige.

Part B of the second approach, Difference Principle asserts that social inequalities are to be
arranged so that they are of the greatest benefit to the least advantages. In other words,
deviating from equality is permissible only when it is to the maximal advantage to the worst-
off

Conclusion
In this unfairness circumstance being said from the above, we agree more from Rawls theory
and stand for the progressive taxation and welfare to the worst-off in reality. For example, we
assume that the government would benefits to all of the citizens equally, approach as a
progressive taxation on wealthy citizens can be highly re-distributive of the resources because
the poor would have no base to tax, and a person with modest wealth should pay a much
lesser tax than a person whom have great wealth. This can be used of the revenues in a re-
distributive way so as to guarantee the equal opportunity and improve the prospects of the
least advantages. If this approach of taxes collection are redistributed in which to provide the
greatest benefit to the least well-off through whatever this mechanism, whether direct
transfers, education, health care, or other related programs that open opportunity and improve
the prospects of the poor which it is matters little from the tax itself looks like because the
spending side of the budget corrects or adjusts the distributional consequences overall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference:
-Robert L. Simon ed., The Blackwell Guide to Social and Political Philosophy, Chapter3.
-Hugh Lafollette ed. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, Chapter 54 (written by Jonathan
Wolff)
-Linda Sugin, Theories of Distribute Justice and Limitations on Taxation: What Rawls
Demands from Tax System