Application to Questions of
Justice and Social Welfare:
Introduction
Nanoethics Lecture IV
Roderick T. Long
Auburn Dept. of Philosophy
Distributive Justice
How should the benefits of, and/or
the control over, nanotechnology
be distributed?
Moral issue: principles
Practical issue: implementation
John Rawls (1921-2002)
Most influential theory
of distributive justice
in recent decades:
A Theory of Justice (1971)
Political Liberalism (1993)
Justice As Fairness (2001)
John Rawls (1921-2002)
A version of contractarianism
(standard of rightness is what
rational people do, or under
appropriate conditions would,
agree to) but influenced by
Kant (principles must be
universalizable and treat
people as ends, not mere
means)
Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance
Considerations that block consensus
on principles of justice are also
unfair to rely on in choosing such
principles: how they impact
- one’s interest group
- one’s conception of the good
Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance
Choose principles of
justice as though you
don’t know your
interest group (race,
gender, income, age,
health, etc.) and
conception of the good
(religious, moral, and
lifestyle preferences)
Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance
Maximin: choose the option whose worst
possible outcome is preferable to the
worst possible outcome of any rival
option.
Not a general principle of choice, but a
cautious principle for life-affecting
decisions.
(Does this favor risk-averse conceptions of
the good?)
Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance
Choose the pie whose smallest piece is bigger
than the smallest piece of any rival pie
Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance
Egalitarian
choice
Rawlsian
choice
Utilitarian
choice
Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance
Different conceptions of the common
good:
Utilitarian: aggregate advantage
(allows sacrifice of few to many)
Rawlsian: mutual advantage (no
sacrifice)
Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance
The size of a pie of material wealth
(and thus the size of its smallest
piece) can be affected by how the
pieces are distributed (e.g.,
incentives)
The size of a pie of liberty cannot be.
Hence: different principles for liberty
and for wealth
Rawls’ First Principle of Justice
Maximum liberty for
each, so far as is
consistent with
equal liberty for all
Rawls’ Second Principle of Justice
Socioeconomic
inequalities
permissible only if:
a) open to all
b) beneficial to the
least advantaged
Question of Implementation
Which politicoeconomic system in
fact best satisfies
these principles?
Capitalism?
Socialism?
something else?
Question of Implementation
Rawls: largely a
question for social
scientists, not moral
philosophers
Ethics sets the
standards
 Economics figures
out how to meet
them

Some Critics of Rawls
Robert Nozick Michael Sandel
Susan Okin
Criticisms of Rawls
 Why
does hypothetical consent
matter?
Criticisms of Rawls
 Why
does hypothetical consent
matter?
 Are omitted considerations crucial to
our identity (Sandel) and/or to our
rights (Nozick)?
Criticisms of Rawls
 Why
does hypothetical consent
matter?
 Are omitted considerations crucial to
our identity (Sandel) and/or to our
rights (Nozick)?
 Does the enforcement of the 2nd
principle violate the liberty protected
by the 1st?
A Feminist Criticism
Insofar as Rawls is concerned with
the distribution of benefits and
burdens within society rather than
within the family, doesn’t his
approach fail to address:
a) women’s disproportionate burden
of labor within the household
b) the family’s role as the context in
which expectations of justice are
learned?
An Anarchist Criticism
Doesn’t the implementation of
Rawls’ principles presuppose
without argument the
legitimacy of the State?
Why would people behind the
veil of ignorance agree to
give this one institution
powers denied to all others?
More Criticisms of Rawls
the 1st principle too
skeptical/relativist about the good?
 Is
More Criticisms of Rawls
the 1st principle too
skeptical/relativist about the good?
 Does the 2nd principle require too
little equality?
 Is
More Criticisms of Rawls
the 1st principle too
skeptical/relativist about the good?
 Does the 2nd principle require too
little equality?
 Does the 2nd principle require too
much equality?
 Is
More Criticisms of Rawls
the 1st principle too
skeptical/relativist about the good?
 Does the 2nd principle require too
little equality?
 Does the 2nd principle require too
much equality?
 Does the 2nd principle treat persons
as mere means?
 Is
Some of Rawls’ Replies
 Given
human fallibility, unfair to
insist on any conception of the good
one wouldn’t agree to behind the
Veil of Ignorance.
Some of Rawls’ Replies
 Given
human fallibility, unfair to
insist on any conception of the good
one wouldn’t agree to behind the
Veil of Ignorance.
 Given dependence of assets
(natural or external) on luck, unfair
to insist on pre-Veil rights to these
Possible Counter-replies
 Why
does human fallibility impact
conceptions of the good but not
conceptions of justice?
Possible Counter-replies
 Why
does human fallibility impact
conceptions of the good but not
conceptions of justice?
 Why do considerations of luck
affect one’s assets but not one’s
human status?
Rawls vs. Critics
And the debate
continues ….