Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Fairness, Justice and Economy

No description

Herbert Mayrhofer

on 9 April 2016

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Fairness, Justice and Economy

Utilitarism: Where The Journey Starts
The greatest happiness for the greatest number (Jeremy Bentham). Bentham believes, that the moral worth of decisions relates directly to their utility, or efficiency, in generating happiness or pleasure.
If everyone can be made happy, so much the better, but if a choice is necessary, it is always preferable to favor the many over the few.

John Stuart Mill
While Bentham had considered to measure happiness by duration and intensity of pleasure, John Stuart Mill suggests to consider the quality of pleasure
The libertarian thinkers raise one major objection against Bentham and Mill. It`s the question about respect of the human nature, which maybe lost by adopting the utilitarian calculus of happiness. "Using" people, or a majority of people to reach goals in society or for the government, degrades them to "utility". And that, so the libertarians fails in respecting individuals and their rights.
John Locke
Pacemaker for Liberalism

John Locke believes that there are some certain fundamental individual rights, and those rights are so important that no government, also not an elected democratic one, can override it. Locke also believes that those fundamental rights include a natural right to:
Life, Liberty and Property

The Idea of Consent
Most of the Natural Right philosophers have been clear about, that the so called "State of Nature" is an uncomfortable one.
No law enforcement, no courts, no judges,
only strong individual rights and the necessity to defend it by your own.
What`s the Right Thing to Do
& Economy
If we discuss about diversity, values, intercultural management and
we have to consider, that Europeans have a specific "western perspective" on this world. Roger Martin, the former Dean at the Rotman School of Management / University of Toronto / Canada, quotes in his book "Opposable Minds":
Fairness, Justice & Economy
"In every domain, human beings gravitate toward simplification and specialization. We do so, because we live in a dauntingly complex and ambiguous world"
Martin, R.: The Opposable Mind, p.75
"Stance is how you see the world
around you, but it`s also how you
see yourself in that world."
Tools range from formal theories
to established processes to rules
of thumb. Your stance guides what
tools you choose to accumulate.
The experiences you accumulate are the products of your stance and tools, which guide you toward some experience and away from others.
12 Philosophers we talk about:

Aristotle (384 BCE - 322 BCE), Greece

Bentham, Jeremy (1748 CE - 1832 CE), UK

Kant, Immanuel (1724 CE - 1804 CE), Germany

Marx, Karl (1818 CE - 1883 CE), Germany

Machiavelli, Niccolo (1469 CE - 1527 CE), Italy

Mill, John Stuart (1806 CE - 1873 CE), UK

Nozick, Robert (1938 CE - 2002 CE), US

Precht, Richard David (1964 CE), Germany

Rawls, John (1921 CE - 2002 CE), US

Sandel, Michael (1953 CE), US

Santayana, George (1863 CE - 1952 CE),

Smith, Adam (1723 CE - 1790 CE), UK

Recommended Books for this Lecture
Barnes, Jonathan:
Aristotle, A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2000
ISBN: 978-0-19-285408-7

Blackburn, Simon:
Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press
New York, 2008. ISBN: 978-0-19-954143-0

Blackburn, Simon:
Think. A compelling introduction to philosophy. Oxford University
Press, New York, 2001. ISBN: 978-0-19-285425-4

Bentham, Jeremy:
An Introduction to the Principles of Moral and Legislation. (Dover
Philosophical Classics) Dover Publ. Inc, 2007. ISBN: 978-0486454528

De Crescenco, Luciano:
Les Grands Philosophes des la Grece Antique. Editions Julliard,
Paris, 1988. ISBN: 2-722-4547-4

Gribbin, John:
Science: A History. Penguin Books, Penguin Group London 2003.
ISBN: 978-0-140-20741-6

Honderich, Ted (Ed.):
The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press,
New York, 2005. ISBN: 978-0-19-926479-7

enny, Anthony:
A New History of Western Philosophy. Oxford University Press,
London, 2010. ISBN: 978- 0-958988-3

Mill, John Stuart:
Utilitarianism. Reclam, Stuttgart, 2006. ISBN: 978-3-15-018461-5

Miller, David:
Political Philosophy, A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press,
New York, 2003. ISBN: 978-0-19-280395-5

Nozick, Robert:
Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, 1977. ISBN: 978-0465097203

Precht, Richard David:
Die Kunst kein Egoist zu sein. Goldmann, München, 2012
ISBN: 978-3-442-15631-3

Rawls, John:
A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press 2005. ISBN: 978-0674017726

Sandel, Michael:
What Money Can`t Buy. The Moral Limits of Markets. Penguin Books,
London, 2013. ISBN: 978-0241954485

Sen, Amartya:
The Idea of Justice. Penguin Books, London, 2010. ISBN: 978-0141037851

Velasquez, Manuel:
Philosophy, 11th Edition. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, Boston 2011
ISBN: 978-0-495-81078-0

Weber, Alfred:
History of Philosophy, Reprint from the collection of the University
of Michigan Library
Ethics is to understand and critically evaluate our moral values and moral principles and to see how these relate to our conduct and to our social arrangements.

Ethics includes questions about the nature of moral virtue and moral obligation; what basic moral principles we should follow and what is morally good for human beings; the justice of moral structures and political systems, and the morality of various kinds of behaviours, social policies, and social institutions.
(Manuel Velasquez)
Moral Reasoning in a Global Economy
Experiment 1: Demanding Decisions On Track
Experiment 2: Emergency at the Emergency Room
CASE 1: Queen vs Dudley and Stephens
The famous case about cannibalism at sea from 1884. A Law and Moral Case
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
One of the the main benefits of this proposed system is its simplicity. Bentham also insists that all sources of pleasure
are of equal value, so that the happiness derived from a good meal or close friendship is equal to other activities like sports, games (Circus Maximus?), education or engaging in poetry or philosophical debates.
Benthams` "Auto-Icon" is situated in a wooden cabinet at the collegium hall of the London University. When the meeting of the collegium in 2013 took place, Jeremy Bentham was listed as "present but not voting"
Learnings by
Benthams Theory:
Moral Reasoning can be
Consequentialist - locates morality in the consequences of an act
Categorical - locates morality in certain duties and rights
So the concept of sources of pleasure with equal value seems unsatisfying for many humans.
We have to investigate
Measurement of Pleasure
What is the most valuable pleasure, or the best quality delivered by those videos?

On what ist our judgement based?
The Concept by Mill
John Stuart Mill brings in new arguments to defend the concept of Utilitarism and to make it more clear and understandable
Argument 1:
In reality, utility is defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain. Thus another name for utility is the Greatest Happiness Principle. This principle holds that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure." Pleasure and the absence of pain are, by this account, the only things desirable as ends in themselves, the only things inherently "good." Thus, any other circumstance, event, or experience is desirable only insofar as it is a source for such pleasure; actions are good when they lead to a higher level of general happiness, and bad when they decrease that level.
Argument 2
Mill delineates how to differentiate between higher- and lower-quality pleasures: A pleasure is of higher quality if people would choose it over a different pleasure even if it is accompanied by discomfort, and if they would not trade it for a greater amount of the other pleasure. Moreover, Mill contends, it is an "unquestionable fact" that, given equal access to all kinds of pleasures, people will prefer those that appeal to their "higher" faculties. A person will not choose to become an animal, an educated person will not choose to become ignorant, and so on.
Argument 3
People who employ higher faculties are often less content, because they have a deeper sense of the limitations of the world. However, their pleasure is of a higher character than that of an animal or a base human. Mill writes, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinions, it is because they only know their side of the question." Thus the people best qualified to judge a pleasure's quality are people who have experienced both the higher and the lower.
The highest principle of morality, either personal or politi cal morality, is to maximize
the general welfare; or the collective happiness, or the overall balance of plea sure over pain. In a phrase: To maximize utility. The greatest good for the greatest number.
Bowl for Arguments
Quote by Jeremy Bentham
Excursus: Adam Smith
The free market provides just distribution
Objections to Utilitarism 1
Fails to respect individual / minority rights
Not possible to aggregate all values into €€€ | $$$
Objections to Utilitarism II
Using a single measure based on money only, you cannot draw a difference between higher and lower pleasures.
But it seems possible if this kind of distinction is existing within the values of a society.
Objections to Libertarianism
The poor need the money more
Taxation by the consent of the governed is not coerced
The sucessful owe a debt to society
Wealth depends partly on luck, so it isn`t deserved.
Categorical Imperative
The idea of freedom makes us a member of an intelligible world. Kant admits that we are not only rational beings. We are living simultaneously in two realms:
The real of freedom and the realm of necessity. Precisely we inhabit both at the same time we often experience a gap. The gap between what we do and what we ought to do. Morality is not empirical, stands in distance to the real world. Therefore no science can deliver truth, or moral decisions.

We are all governed by pain and pleasure. They are our sovereign masters so any moral system has to take account of them. How to take account?. By maximizing. And this leads to the greatest good for the greatest number. The accounting should be run by a mathematic procedure which Bentham calls a"felicific calculus".
Maximizing utility is a principle not only for individuals, but also for communities and legislators. What after all is a community, it is the sum of the individuals who comprise it, Bentham says.

So deciding what is best policy, and deciding what is best legislation, and deciding what is just, the citizens and legislators should ask themselves the question as follows: If we add up all the benefits of this policy and subtract all the costs, the right thing to do is the one that maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering
This means maximizing utility. But especially at this point another important question arises:
How to organize sufficiently the distribution of utility in society? At this point we should arrange a meeting with Adam Smith
1723 - 1790
Free People agree rationally, out of their self interests, to exchange goods, money or services for their personal needs or individual pleasures in a way that benefits both parties. This is maximizing utility.

So the market concept delivers two strong arguments:
The exchange is valuable for buyer and seller as well, so the common welfare and the benefits for society increase. This is perfectly utilitarian
Free people make deliberately action driven by self-interest for their own advantages based on rational decisions. This is a flawless liberal idea.
The logic of taking into account the amount of pleasure and the suffering deducted, establishes a strong principle within todays society:
The Cost Benefit Relation
Putting a price tag
on everyone`s life?
The Czech "Smoking Case" (2000)

Unternehmensberatung Arthur D. Little im Auftrag von

Increased Health Tax Revenue from
Care Costs Cigarette Sales

Health Care Savings
(from early deaths)

Pension Savings
Housing Costs Savings
Net gain for Czech budget if citizens smoke:

USD 147 Million / p.a.

Savings from premature deaths: $ 1227,00 per person
The Pinto Case (1970`s)
Safety for Sale

11 USD per part

x 12,5 million cars

= 137 million USD

(cheap way out)
180 deaths x 200.000 $
180 injuries x 67.000 $
2000 cars to repair x 700 $
= 49,5 million USD
"Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification."
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter II.
When making moral judgment on an action, utilitarianism thus takes into account not just the quantity, but also the quality of the pleasures resulting from it
Limits of the Utilitarian Principles
Mill recognized that Utilitarianism has to find its limitations, for not becoming some kind of tyranny of majority.
In his book "On Liberty" Mill addresses the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.
He said that social liberty was "the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual". It was attempted in two ways: first, by obtaining recognition of certain immunities, called political liberties or rights; second, by establishment of a system of "constitutional checks".
Within these arguments on "Individual Rights" and "Utilitarian Principles" Mill strongly promotes Liberalism as a balance between individual rights and governmental powers.

An intensely discussed topic also nowadays. What is necessarily ruled and organized by government and what are the individual rights and obligations on our individual life.

Here we have to have a deeper look on more basic and and let`s say more radical liberal ideas........
The Path of Liberalism
Robert Nozick (1938 - 2002)
The American Philosopher Robert Nozick describes in his famous book "Anarchy, State and Utopia" (1974) the core idea as follows:

We have a fundamental right to liberty. And that means the right to choose freely to live the lives as we please, provided we respect other peoples rights to do the same.
"Individuals have rights; so strong and far reaching are this rights, that they may question anything the state might do."
Following those libertarian arguments there are three things mostly done by states or governments, that are illegitimate:

1. No Paternalist Legislation

2. No Morals Legislation

3. No Redistribution of Income from the Rich to the Poor
Paternalistic Rules
Argument 1
Redistribution from the rich to the poor is -following in a strict deduction from libertarian philosophy- coercion; at least it`s theft. Theft by the authority or the majority. So, more or less, taxation is unjust anyway.
Argument 2
One modification of these principles Nozick and other libertarian thinkers (Milton Friedman) allow is:

There can be a "small" state authority which taxes for some basic necessities like national defense, army, police force and judicial offices
Reality at a Glance
Let`s have a look at the distribution of wealth
Nozick`s Arguments:
There is no answer only looking at charts and draw conclusions about just or unjust. You have to look how it developed. What makes income distribution just?
It is inegalitarian. Is this just?
1. Justice in Acquisition (initial holdings)

Did people get the things to use to make their money fairly
2. Justice in Transfer (free market)
Have all transaction been based on free consent
To get the question clear, one vivid example
Bill Gates (56 bn €)
€€€ per hour?
Ronaldo 21 Mio €
Messi: 17 Mio €
7 Mio €
Sum of 3 Players:
45 Mio € /p.a.
Jugde Judy 100.000 €
per day
50.000 €
per month
120.000 €
per Quarter
Austrian Judges
avg: 88.000 € per year
Secretary of Justice:
225.000 € per year
Eric Holder 130.000 € per year
you agree?
you disagree?
Libertarians as
deny that we can tax the rich to redistribute the money to poor people.

The economic professor
Milton Friedman
became claimed and hatred as well when he published two of his famous quotes:

"There`s nothing like a free lunch", and "the only social responsibility of a company is to make profit".
Nozick`s Arguments against Taxation
Taxation = taking of earnings (my own hands work)

Taking of earnings = forced labour (versus consent)

Forced labour = slavery
All those points violate the principle of self-possession
The fundamental moral idea in libertarianism is that we are the owner and the proprietor of our own person. That`s why the utilitarian idea goes wrong.
Challenging the idea of self possesssion leads to the origin of this idea; which wasn`t created
by Nozick at all. But we have to look at a
famous & liberal English philosopher:
(1632 - 1704)
Locke`s Heritage
Thomas Jefferson built on Locke and wrote thiese ideas down in the American Declaration of Independence (1776), a powerful document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Law of Nature

Law of Nature delivers out of Locke`s position one major constraint. This constraint means, that you have natural rights, but you have no right to give those rights away. You are not allowed to become a slave on consent, or sell your life or commit suicide; nor can we take this from somebody else.
Life, Liberty and Property as fundamental rights are not negotiable.
Where does the Law of Nature come from?
Lock delivers two answers:

1. For men, being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker......

2. If we properly reflect on what it means to be free, we will be led to the conclusion that freedom can`t just be a matter of doing whatever we want.

Concept of Natural Right
The Natural Right derives from being a human individual before governmental power was erected or constitutions have been written.

"The state of nature is a state of liberty, humans are free and equal beings, there is no natural hierarchy, it`s not the case that some people are born as kings and others as serveres; we are free and equal in the state of nature
These are inalienable rights
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges everyone:
and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.
How does it work in the Case of Property?
Locke argues: "...every man has a property in
his own person. This nobody has any right to but
himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his."

"For this labour being the unquestionable property of the laborer, non man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to,.......
at least where there is enough, and as good
left in common for others."
Understanding of Property
"As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates and can use the product of, so much is his property.
He by his labour does, as it were, enclose it from the common."
This land is my land...

Was a high wall there that tried to stop me
A sign was painted said: Private Property,
But on the back side it didn't say nothing —

[This land was made for you and me.]
Once more John Locke...
"One may destroy a man who makes war on him......, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion because such men .....have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him, whenever he falls into their power."
... and Thomas Hobbes.
(1588 -1679)
Locke, for sure, took some ideas out of Thomas Hobbes view about the human nature (Homo hominem lupus est - Leviathan). As well as
he picked up the idea of the Social Contract. As other philosophers, i.e.:Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
John Rawls, David Gauthier, Philip Pettit, et al.
Social contract theory as philosophy is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.
So there is the need for consent to
establish a society by cooperation:
The Social Contract
The Case of Conscription
Consent vs. Natural Rights
Austria held a referendum on conscription at 20. January 2013
Can government conscript young people and send them to war ?
What are the arguments for conscription?
What are the arguments against conscription?
Should military service be allocated by the labor market or by conscription? What role should patriotism play, and what are the obligations of citizenship?
The Case of Surrogacy
The egg and sperm donor business:
...all about money?
In some cases women didn´t want to give up their motherhood and tried to cancel the underlying donation contracts. One famous case in he US worked out as follows:
The sponsors started to sue the surrogate mothers to et the signed contract fulfilled.
They paid money, a contract was signed and one major principle on markets is:

Pacta servanda sunt !
One case went up to the US Supreme Court and opened an interesting debate...
Objections to enforce surrogacy contracts:

1. Tainted or flawed consent
- by coercion
- lack of information

2. Dehumanization
At lower court this position won. Because a consent deal in a rational market situation.
The Supreme Court argued:
Under the contract the mother is irrevocably committed before she knows the strength of the bond to her child. She never makes a truly voluntary, informed decision, for any decision prior to the baby`s birth is, in the most important sense, uninformed.
And took a second position against commodification:
This s the sale of a child, or at least the sale of a mother`s right
to her child... Whatever idealism may motivate each of the participants, the profit motive predominates, permeates, and ultimately governs the transaction.
Regardless to consent and contracting, there is something in a civilizised society that money can`t buy...
Experiment: Market decisions of this scope are well reasoned, long discussed and rational
Share a Hundred and Win!
Make a silent an secret offer to share any percentage the money to the student on your left.

You can make an offer only once

If your neighbor agrees you may keep the money

If the offer is denied, the money is recollected
Philosopher Elizabeth S. Anderson (1959)
Professor for Philosophy at University of Michigan
quotes on this case:
"...by requiring the surrogate mother to repress whatever parental love she feels for the child, this norms convert women`s labour into a form of alienated labour...

Her labour is alienated because she must divert it from the end which the social practises of pregnancy rightly promote - an emotional bond with her child."
= certain goods are not open to use
Immanuel Kant
(1724 - 1804)
We have a categorical duty to respect human dignity and not using individual as means; even not for the good ends.
The idea is that we are all rational beings, capable of reason
we are autonomous beings, we are capable of acting and choosing freely
we have capacity for pleasure and pain, but this are not our masters (Bentham!)
Freedom by Kant
To act freely = act autonomously
To act autonomously = act accordingly to my own law. A law I give myself.
This concept is countered by the so called Heteronomy, which means:
to act according to my desires I have not chosen by myself.
The Moral Consequences
of Freedom
Kant rejects utilitarianism. He argues that each of us has certain fundamental duties and rights that take precedence over maximizing utility. Kant rejects the notion that morality is about calculating consequences. When we act out of duty—doing something simply because it is right—only then do our actions have moral worth. The case for the principle.......
The Case of wrong (Money) Change
You buy fresh rolls and bread at the bakery in the morning, as you do 3-4 times a week. This morning you`ve been in a hurry and the shopkeeper gives you shortchange without noticing. As soon as the shortkeeper realizes he runs after you and gives you the change. Why does he act so?
Is this morally, in the
fundamental sense of Kant?
Is the strong principle fulfilled?
If the shopkeeper follows you because he is nervous about that you will check later and
get really annoyed, which means at the end he will lose a good and long term costumer..
...then is not morally in the concept of Kant.
The shopkeepers action has no moral worth, because he did the right thing for the wrong reason.
These principles are so strong because they emerge from the free will and not from necessity. Therefore Kant says, these principles are
Because these principles are so fundamental for our Freedom an Morality they are
Morality unfolds...
Kant concludes: If you act autonomously, which means out of your freedom to choose then you start to act out of duty and not of self interest.

The content and value of duty is defined by reason, by pure and practical reason. All humans have this potential and capability out of their dignity and humanity. This power of the practical reason we all have "
a priori
". It´s deeply human
and we share this pure reason collectively.
The Categorical Imperative
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but alway at the same time, as an end.

(Immanuel Kant)
The Abyss of Falsehood and Truth
The Case of the Murderer chasing the Victim
Immanuel Kants stringent theory of morality allows for no exceptions. Kant believed that telling a lie, even a white lie, is a violation of ones own dignity.
No white lie possible
Kant`s Contribution
Out of the concept of pure reason and the maxim of an universal law Kant had a strong belief in stringent contracts
John Rawls
Rawls theory goes parallel with Kant on two sides. Rawls also critisises utilitarianism:
2 Contributions
Evolution of the Social Contract - Exercising Justice
"A contract that generates principles of right
is merely an idea of reason, but has
undoubted practical reality, because it
can oblige every legislator to frame his
laws in such a way that they could have been produced by the united will of the whole nation

This raises the quest: What is the moral force that led to just a hypothetical social contract; a contract no one ever negotiated and signed
(1921 - 2002)
A Theory of Justice
"The most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position."
1. "Each person possesses an involiability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override...
The rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests."
2. Rawls shares with Kant the idea that principles of justice -properly understood-can be derived from a hypothetical contract, not an actual one.
The Veil of Ingnorance - Concept
√Assume that you arrive at the bargaining table with no knowledge whatsoever of your social status, economic power, ethnicity, religion or gender. Then, asks Rawls, what kind of society would you want to set up? The answer, he argued, is a society that would guarantee maximum liberty equally distributed among its members, as well as an equal distribution of wealth and power, unless there are situations where some sort of unequal distribution would favor everyone and if everyone had an equal opportunity of being so favored.
The Moral Force of (actual) Contracts
1. How to they bind or obligate?
2. How they do justife the terms they produce?
How do they bind or obligate?

a. Consent based - AUTONOMY
b. Benefit based - RECIPROCITY
The Moral Limits:

The fact that two individuals sign a consent based contract with benefits for both, does not mean that the contract is fair, or the terms are fair.
David Hume and Reciprocity
Scottish philosopher (1711 -1776), friend with Adam Smith and a major thinker of the Age of Enlightenment. He rejected Locke`s Idea of a Social Contract and denied that there are any obligations existing without active consent. Neither in an hypothetical nor in an actual contract.
Hume at court because of mutual
advantage without consent:

An obligation without consent in refurbishing the house Hume
owned but didn`t live there.
John Rawls Ideal of a Contract
Rawls hypothetical contract is necesserely based on the perfect fulfilment of both contractarion issues. Autonomy and Reciprocity.

The undeniable need for a consent based decision and the need for a fair reciprocity; founded by equal information and knowledge.

The idea of a hypothetical contract among equals, behind the veil of ignorance, for Rawls is the only way to establish justice and fair circumstances
How should income, power, wealth and opportunities be distributed. What are the principles chosen, behind the veil of ignorance.
Would people vote for the utilitarian position "greatest luck for the greatest number"? Rawls would say NO !!!
The Fair Distribution of Justice
We all want to exercise the same equality, we want to be respected with dignity, also if we are member of a minority.
Merit vs. Equality
Bringing everyone to the same starting point and then opening the race.... the effort counts
Also meritocracy fails to bring fair and equal conditions, because we have different natural gifts, different potentials - at least out of the genetic lottery.
experiment !
Merit out of Birth Order
1. Who has siblings (bros & sis) ?

2. Who is first in birth order ?
- First-borns and only children: more than half the US Presidents, every US astronaut and most Nobel prize-winners are in this category. Typical professions are law, politics, science and accountancy.

- First-borns: Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W Bush, Saddam Hussein, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler (actually his mother’s first surviving child), Kylie Minogue, Cherie Blair.
- Only children: Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Franklin D Roosevelt, Jean Paul Sartre, Burt Bacharach, Frank Sinatra, Tiger Woods.

- Middle children: many middle children work in retail, sales, fashion, advertising or the caring professions. Stella McCartney, Michelle Pfeiffer, Jacqueline du Pré, Princess Diana, Cindy Crawford, Cate Blanchett, Emily Brontë.

- Last children: thought to be rebels, non-conformists, also drawn to creative professions and performing arts. Joan of Arc, Mahatma Gandhi, Charles Darwin, Leon Trotsky, Charlie Chaplin, Hugh Grant, Johnny Depp.
Research on Birth Order by
Kevin Leman, Alfred Adler and Francis Galton
Theories of
Distibutive Justice
Aristocratic - Ancestry driven (born into...)
Utilitarian - Calculus of Happines
Libertarian - The free market system
Meritocratic - Fair equality on opportunity
Egalitarian - Difference only if it helps the weak
Libertarian Concept
Strong natural right designated to the individuals does not allow society or government to influence the personal development or to redistribute wealth
Concept of Meritocracy
Establishing fair starting positions is a strong moral value, but from that point on the individual effort counts, also in work ethics as in contingency.

More or less the
moderate liberal view
Egalitarian Concept
Rawls doesn`t say the only way to remedy or to compensate for differences in natural talents or opportunities needs a leveling or guaranteed equality. But he argues, people may gain, may benefit of their personal fortune but only on terms which work to the advantage of the least well off.
...and wages again, next case
Rawls argues that an individuals personal success is often a function of morally arbitrary facts—luck, genes, and family circumstances—for which he or she can claim no credit. Those at the bottom are no less worthy simply because they weren't born with the talents a particular society rewards, Rawls argues, and the only just way to deal with society`s inequalities is for the naturally advantaged to share their wealth with those less fortunate.
Objections to John Rawls
"Theory of Justice"
What about incentives ?
What about effort?
What about self-ownership?
Incentives & Efforts
In general incentives are ok, says Rawls, as long as they fit into the system of society. If unequal income helps the weaker by collecting and redistributing enough taxmoney from high incomes the testing of the principle is successful. If government taxes high incomes by i.e. 90% or more, nobody (suppose in our society) wants to go for incentives and no more taxmoney is collected.
To measure the effort is also a difficult issue. Who deserves more money, honour, appreciation, wealth and property.
The effort of building walls...
Swiss wage disparity vote
in November 2013
Self Ownership denies Taxation
"Life is not fair, it is tempting to believe that government can rectify what nature has spawned".
Milton Friedman
"The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust, nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What is just or unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts."
John Rawls: Theory of Justice, 1999, page 243
Design of an Answer
A just scheme answers to what men are entitled to; it satisfies their legitimate expectations as founded upon social institutions. But what they are entitled to is not proportional to dependent upon their intrinsic work
IMF (International Monetary Fund) on Redistribution, Inequality and Growth (Feb. 2014)
Entitled vs. Deserving
Establishing Justice - by Affirmative Action
Is it fair and just for society and government to deliver facilitation, encouragement and sometimes changing the rules to help the weak, the disadvantaged and the poor a cost of the general ressources. To bring all humans at minimum to the same starting point regardless to any costs and any burden to society?
Equality of Opportunity - in Education, Sports, Career, Income, Promotion and Acknowlegdement
...some Cases
Oscar Pistorius goes Olympic
Casey Martin goes for PGA Tour
Abigail Fisher goes for
University Admission -
In Vain
At the moment in media
for defending at court.
He is accused to have murdered his girl friend.
Fastest man on no legs,
also named Blade Runner
Olympic Summer Games - London 2012, 4x400m Relay
The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) denied in 2008 Pistorius` attendance for the Olympic Games in Beijing 2008. The arguments were based on a study which stated, that the blades will bring relevant advantage on dynamic and speed.
The international Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) allowed Pistorius to start 2012 in London, following arguments that blades bring relevant disandvantages in curves and specific weather conditions
PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which disabled golfer Casey Martin asserted that the PGA Tour could not lawfully deny him the option to ride in a golf cart between shots. Prior to this case, the PGA Tour required all golfers to walk between shots, and argued that this policy constituted an important aspect of the game of golf. The Supreme Court found for Martin in a 7–2 decision.
When Abigail Fisher's application to study at the University of Texas at Austin was met with rejection, she didn't take the rebuff lying down. Fisher, a 23-year-old white woman, sued the university, alleging that she had been discriminated against because of her race – a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
While the District Court and Fifth Circuit court both ruled in the University's favor, the Supreme Court decided in June to remand the case for further consideration by the lower courts.
Another Decision
2003 – Grutter v. Bollinger
Caucasian Barbara Grutter filed suit against University of Michigan Law School for racial discrimination in admissions. The Supreme Court upheld the school's affirmative action policy, ruling that it used race as a "plus" factor only, and considered such efforts constitutional because they narrowly considered race in the compelling interest of promoting diversity. This overturned the Hopwood decision, and ruled that affirmative action policies are not unconstitutional.
Arguments for Affirmative Action
1. Corrective

2. Compensatory

3. Diversity
for differences in educational backgrounds
for past wrongs
for educational experience
for society as a whole

next objections ?
Equality brings Justice?
The Greek philospher Aristotle is in a strong dissent with Kant and Rawls. There is no way gaining justice by being categorical or contractarian. For an answer to find a way to justice, we have to look at the THING itself, claims Aristotle.
384 - 322 BCE
The famous example by Aristotle: He asks tricky questions, how to distribute limited ressources within society in a just way.
The Quest: 20.000 citizens and only 8 flutes available. How to distribute?
Searching for the End, the Purpose, the Goal
is the answer.....
We have to find the
Humans are so called "Zoon Politicon", this means that we are social and political beings. Living in a society, in a so called Polis (community) is the TELOS of man.
But not only living is the TELOS but the good life at all, says Aristotle.
Aristotle argues in this way on the ground of Platon, who describes his idea of political human being in his famous works "Politicon" and "Phaidros".
People join community, so Aristotle, because there is a real hope for happiness within all this suffering of life. We own LOGOS, the ability to speak and to express, so to reason about......

...therefore we are able to distinguish beween GOOD and BAD, JUST & UNJUST, RIGHT or WRONG
Teleogical Reasoning
by playing Golf
and Winnie the Pooh
What`s the TELOS of Society?
To educate people to live a good life.
"Any polis which is truly so called, and is not merely one in name, must devote itself to the end of encouraging goodness. Otherwise political association sinks into a mere alliance."
"A polis is not an association for residents on a common site, or for the sake of preventing mutual injustice and easing exchange.
The end and the purpose of a polis is the good life, and the institutions of social life are the means to that end"
Is it necessary to reason about the good life in order to decide what rights people have and what is just?
In many cases, the law cant be neutral on hard moral questions. Engaging rather than avoiding the moral convictions of our fellow citizens may be the best way of seeking a just society.
What motivates us for a good life?
Equality brings Justice?
Karl Marx (1818 - 1883)
Karl Marx says Yes, arguing that
there have to be special decisions
about ownership and property.
He believes in establishing justice
by socialising estate, means of
production and capital.
Communist Manifesto

A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

The history of all hitherto existing
society is the history of class
The Manifesto explains that the reason the bourgeois exist and exploit the proletariat with low wages is private property, "the accumulation of wealth in private hands, the formation and increase of capital",and that competition amongst the proletariat creates wage-labour, which rests entirely on the competition among the workers.
Communist Manifesto, Part II,
Bourgeois and Proletarian
10 Demands by Karl Marx

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to
public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a
national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in
the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by
the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies,
especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual
abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more
equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's
factory labour in its present form and combination of education with
industrial production.

Child Labour in Europe and North America
(early 20. Century)
Photos by
Lewis Hine
Addie Cart
10 years !
Lewis Hine (1908)
Child Labour Asia and Africa
(early 21. Century)
Rawls' assumption that the principal task of government is to secure and distribute fairly the liberties and economic resources individuals need to lead freely chosen lives, is challenged by the so called "Communitarian".

They also reject the supremacy of a state, ruled by the working class idea of bringing justice through equality by socializing capital, estate and wealth.

Also Aristotle`s view is insufficient, because the tightening concept of a strong Telos prevents real freedom for the people.
Alasdair MacIntyre
Michael J. Sandel
Michael Walzer
Richard David Precht
The Position
Communitarian critics of liberalism may have been motivated not so much by philosophical concerns as by certain pressing political concerns, namely, the negative social and psychological effects related to the atomistic tendencies of modern liberal societies. Whatever the soundness of liberal principles, in other words, the fact remains that many communitarians seem worried by modern phenomena as alienation from the political process, unbridled greed, loneliness, urban crime, and high divorce rates.

Universalism vs. Particularism
Individuals and Communities
The political left is chastised not just for supporting welfare rights economically unsustainable in an era of slow growth and aging populations, but also for shifting power away from local communities and democratic institutions and towards centralized bureaucratic structures better equipped to administer the fair and equal distribution of benefits, thus leading to a growing sense of powerlessness and alienation from the political process.
Justice is relative to social meanings. A given society is just if its substantive life is lived in a certain way, in a way that is faithful to the shared understandings of the members.
Michael Walzer
I am born with a past, and to try to cut myself off from that past is to deform my present relationships.
Alasdaire MacIntyrew
Communitarianism is based on three principles:

The first requires that any claim of truth be validated through co-operative enquiry.

Second, communities of co-operative inquiry, which represent the spectrum of citizens, should validate common values that become the basis of mutual responsibilities of all community members.

And third,all citizens should have equal access and participation
in the power structure of society.
GSM - April 2016
Share Price
8th of April 2016
104,25 €
900 Mio $ fine
600 Mio $ for survivers
6 lawsuits still at court
Affirmative Action
Full transcript