compare and evaluate competing theories of distributive justice, including Rawls, Nozick and utilitarian approaches

What this dot point is asking

QCAA wants you to compare rival answers to a core Unit 4 question: how should a society fairly distribute wealth, opportunity and burdens? You need the major theories of distributive justice, especially John Rawls and Robert Nozick, plus the utilitarian approach, and you must be able to apply and evaluate them. This is prime IA2 and IA3 essay material and appears in the external exam.

The answer

What distributive justice asks

Distributive justice concerns the fair allocation of benefits (income, wealth, opportunity, rights) and burdens (taxes, duties) across a society. Theories divide into two broad families. Patterned theories say a distribution is just if it matches some pattern or principle (such as equality, need or merit). Historical theories say a distribution is just if it came about by a just process, regardless of the resulting pattern.

Rawls: justice as fairness

John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice (1971), is the most influential modern theorist. He asks what principles people would choose in an original position behind a veil of ignorance, where no one knows their class, talents, gender or conception of the good. Stripped of self-interested bias, rational parties would, Rawls argues, choose two principles:

1. The liberty principle: each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with the same for all.
2. The difference principle: social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they (a) are attached to positions open to all under fair equality of opportunity, and (b) work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged.

Rawls is a patterned, egalitarian theorist: inequality is justified only when it lifts the worst-off. His reasoning assumes rational parties would be cautious (the "maximin" strategy of making the worst outcome as good as possible).

Nozick: the entitlement theory

Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), attacks Rawls from the libertarian right. His entitlement theory is historical, resting on three principles:

1. Justice in acquisition (how unowned things are first acquired);
2. Justice in transfer (voluntary exchange and gift);
3. Rectification of past injustice.

A distribution is just if it arose from just acquisition and a chain of just transfers, whatever pattern results. Nozick's famous Wilt Chamberlain argument claims that any patterned ideal will be upset by free choices: if people freely pay to watch a star play, the resulting inequality is just, so "liberty upsets patterns". For Nozick, redistributive taxation to enforce a pattern violates rights and is "on a par with forced labour".

The utilitarian approach

A utilitarian distributes so as to maximise total or average welfare (happiness). Because of the diminishing marginal utility of money (a dollar means more to a poor person than a rich one), utilitarianism often supports some redistribution. But it has no in-principle commitment to equality: if total welfare were maximised by an unequal distribution, utilitarianism would endorse it, which is the standard worry that it could license sacrificing a minority for the greater sum.

Comparing the theories

• On inequality: Rawls permits it only if it helps the worst-off; Nozick permits any inequality from just transfers; utilitarianism permits whatever maximises welfare.
• On the role of the state: Rawls supports a redistributive state; Nozick supports only a minimal "night-watchman" state; utilitarianism supports whatever institutions maximise welfare.
• On method: Rawls and contract theory use hypothetical consent; Nozick uses rights and history; utilitarianism uses outcomes.

Try this

Q1. Explain Rawls's two principles of justice and the role of the veil of ignorance. [5 marks]

• Cue. Equal basic liberties; the difference principle benefiting the worst-off; the veil removes bias so the choice is impartial.

Q2. Outline Nozick's entitlement theory and the Wilt Chamberlain argument. [4 marks]

• Cue. Justice in acquisition, transfer and rectification; free choices generate just inequality, so liberty upsets patterns.

Q3. State one objection to the utilitarian approach to distribution. [2 marks]

• Cue. It could justify sacrificing a minority if doing so maximised total welfare.