2. His opening question: How do we determine the most
fundamental principles of justice upon which to organize society?
The basic answer: By envisioning what reasonable people would
agree to if they had to sit down and hammer out an agreement.
He calls this hypothetical situation the “Original Position”
The problem: People can be self-interested, and might tend to
favor their own family, friends, economic class, etc.
The solution: Envision what reasonable people would agree to if
they had to abstract away from their own personal situations.
The Device: The Veil of Ignorance
Imagine what principles they would apply for one and all if they did not know their
potential or actual
▪ natural abilities
▪ education and skills
▪ economic position
▪ Race, gender, sexuality, etc.
▪ etc
3. First Principle: Liberty
Each person is to have an equal right to the most
extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible
with a similar system of liberty for all.
Second Principle: Wealth (The “Difference Principle”)
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so
that they are both:
a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged
b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions
of fair equality of opportunity.
4. This is usually interpreted to mean that the most just
distribution of resources is the one where the “worst-
off” group is better off than in any alternative scenario.
Consider the (extremely oversimplified) situation where
a society has two members, A and B. Suppose there are
three options for distributing units of wealth.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
A 40 10 2o
B 5 10 15
5. A utilitarian might prefer option 1, because is
maximizes the combined holdings of A and B.
A strict egalitarian would most likely prefer B,
because both A and B get the same amount.
Rawls would prefer option 3, because that’s
where the least well-off party, B, is best off.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
A 40 10 2o
B 5 10 15
6. Redistribution of wealth might be warranted
as a matter of justice.
Equality of opportunity may be insufficient to
achieve economic justice – such inequality
may lead to wildly different outcomes for
parties with the same opportunities.
There are limits to the pursuit of economic
equality – we might get to the point where
further redistribution will make all parties
worse off.
7. Distributive Justice is “historical”, not a matter of “end
results.”
According to Nozick, justice in holdings is defined by
three simple principles.
1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with
the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that
holding.
2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with
the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else
entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding.
3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated)
applications of 1 and 2.