Tyler Brown
Distributive Justice Monday Seminar 16/04
Spring 2011 Examination
1. What is meant by consequential justice and procedural justice?
A. Consequential Justice
Consequential justice refers to the idea that a procedure is considered just only if it leads to a just
outcome. Total emphasis is placed upon the result of the procedure or process, rather than the
procedure or process itself. For instance, take the decision to the kill a suspected terrorist who plots
to murder a group of people. Although it may violate that individual's right to life, the procedure
would be considered just since the outcome prevents the murder of more people.
B. Procedural Justice
Procedural justice refers to the idea of fairness when considering the allocation of resources and the
resolutions of disputes. The outcome of a procedure is considered just only if the procedure itself is
or was just. Ensuring fairness in a procedure requires consistency in decisions, neutrality,
transparency in the process, and representation by those people who are directly affected by the
procedures and its outcome. If there is some sort of corruption or bias in the procedure, then the
outcome will not be considered just. Examples of procedural justice are the legal proceedings in
certain countries and the way in which companies handle workplace disputes.
2. Is Rawls’s theory of justice procedural or consequential? Explain why.
John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice can be considered procedural because of the emphasis it places on
the process of constructing the way in which a society allocates resources. Rawls poses a
hypothetical situation in which various members of society meet and unanimously decide upon the
parameters for the distribution of primary goods in a society they would prefer to live in. Therefore,
the individuals who will be directly affected by the procedure have fair representation in the process
as well as the ability to contribute to the decisions. Furthermore, the veil of ignorance in place
ensures neutrality in the selection process and withholds any type of personal information that could
sway an individual from creating a principle in the selection process that would solely favor himself
/herself as opposed to the good of the majority of the society’s inhabitants. Since each member of
this hypothetical meeting would be unsure of his/her place in society, they would gravitate towards
principles that would establish fairness and equality, decreasing the chances of extreme wealth or
poverty. It would seem then that the high importance Rawls places on the just way in which
principles governing distribution are formed directly leads to a just outcome.
3. Robert Nozick’s libertarianism is purely procedural. What are his rules for justice in distribution?
Explain what is meant by justice in acquisition and justice in transfer.
In his ‘Entitlement Theory’, Nozick claims that if we assume every person has a right to their
holdings, a just distribution then is the distribution that results from people’s voluntary exchanges.
The rules, or principles, for justice in distribution include the following: anything that is acquired
through just means can be transferred freely (principle of transfer), an account of how a person first
came to own something can be transferred if it was initially acquired through just means (principle of
just initial acquisition), and how to handle holdings if they were unfairly acquired or transferred
(principle of rectification of injustice). I would take holdings that were ‘unfairly acquired or
transferred’ to mean anything that was obtained through dishonesty, thievery, or force. Justice in
acquisition refers to the just way in which a person gains ownership of a holding, which could be
through the fruits of his labor or through the principle of transfer. Likewise, justice in transfer refers
to the way in which one person acquires a holding from another person. Perhaps it could come to be
through a trade or through some type of philanthropy, both are acceptable as long as the owner
transferred the holding voluntarily and freely.
Nozick’s theory has been criticized for being sensitive to natural and social endowments. This
sensitivity disregards those people who may be born with or later incur disabilities or handicaps that
restrict them from possessing the capacity to obtain holdings through labor or free exchange.
Essentially, these people have nothing to offer and could presumably be left to starve, unless, of
course, someone who has justly acquired their holdings voluntarily chooses to transfer a holding for
charitable reasons. Furthermore, Nozick claims that the only reason the government should be able to
impose taxes are for the sole purpose of maintaining the institutions that uphold free exchange.
Nozick’s theory is indeed founded upon liberty as opposed to equality.
4. Explain and discuss the following Rawlsian concepts: the original position, the difference
principle, and social primary goods.
A. The Original Position
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls creates a metaphorical gathering of members of society whose purpose
is to form and unanimously agree upon a contract, which would regulate the basic institutional
arrangements of the society. He calls this gathering the original position. All parties are behind a veil
of ignorance that prevents them from knowing any privilege or disadvantage they may possess in
society. Personal items such as the distribution of natural assets and abilities, preferences, gender,
birthplace, and economic position are unknown to each party. This veil of ignorance ensures
impartiality in the selection process and forces the parties to decide what the just distribution of
goods and burdens should be in a society they would want to live in. Rawls does state that the
contracted parties know and understand general facts about human society such as principles of
economic theory, political affairs, the basis of social organization, and the laws of human
psychology. The original position is intended to result in the formation of principles of justice that
would be agreed upon when social position and the advantages or disadvantages that may accompany
it are unknown. Since the parties would be unaware of their social status, the likelihood of them
opting for principles that create equality in distribution increases and thus decreases the possibilities
of wealth and poverty.
Rawls’s original position and, more specifically, his veil of ignorance, has been criticized for robbing
the hypothetical participants of personal identity, which, in turn, creates difficulty for one to even
imagine such a scenario as the original position. Other criticisms of the original position deal with the
lack of various points of views and beliefs, each participant seemingly being identical and not
engaging in meaningful conversation to exchange ideas.
B. The Difference Principle
Rawls claims that individuals in the original position would agree on a social contract based upon the
following two principles: 1) Every person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties that
are compatible with similar liberties for others, 2) Social and economic inequalities are to be
arranged so that they are reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and attached to positions
and offices open to all. The second principle is known as the difference principle. As previously
stated, it regulates social and economic inequalities. It compromises between absolute equality and
total wealth, only permitting certain inequalities that work in favor of the least advantaged. By
guaranteeing society’s least advantaged group fairness, Rawls compensates for natural inequalities
like innate talents and abilities. Individuals can only claim a larger share of resources if they illustrate
that it favors those people with the lesser shares.
C. Social Primary Goods
The parties in the original position attempt to ensure the best possible access to primary goods, which
give the opportunity for an average healthy adult to lead a fulfilling life. Essentially, these goods are
considered what every rational person would like to possess. These primary goods also decide social
and economic inequalities. One type of primary good, social primary goods, include all goods
directly distributed by social institutions. Among these goods are various types of rights, income,
wealth, liberties, and power. Criticism has arisen from the narrow scope of the usage of primary
goods. Although they are to be of use throughout an individual’s lifetime, they are not meant for such
periods including childhood, time consumed with illness, and times filled with accidents resulting in
temporary or permanent disabilities. Although is can be reasonably assumed that a person who is
suffering from serious illness or who may be limited by a certain handicap requires more income for
treatments or accommodations, Rawls claims that health is not a social primary good, but a natural
one. Since health is a natural good, it is unable to be distributed by the government.