Name: Michael Sandel Justice：What's The Right Thing To Do
Uploaded: 2013-11-12T00:31:47.000Z
Duration: 55 min 7 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

to the question of  distributive justice.

John Rawls offers a detailed answer to that question.

And we're going to examine and assess his answer to that question today.

We put ourselves in a position to do so last time.

By trying to make sense of why he thinks. That principles of justice

are best derived from a hypothetical contract.

And what matters is that the hypothetical contract be carried out in an original position of equality

behind, what Rawls calls, the veil of ignorance.

Alright, then let's turn to the principles

that Rawls says would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance.

First, he considered some of  the major alternatives.

Would the people in the original position choose to govern their collective lives

utilitarian principles, the greatest good for the greatest number

that behind the veil of ignorance, everyone knows

that once the veil goes up, and real life begins,

we will each want to be respected with dignity.

Even if we turn out to be  a member of a minority.

to reject utilitarianism, and instead to adopt

as our first principle, equal basic liberties.

We wouldn't want to take the chance that we would wind up

as members of an oppressed or a despised minority

And so Rawls says utilitarianism would be rejected.

"Utilitarianism makes the mistake", Rawls writes,

"of forgetting, or at least not taking seriously,the distinction between persons."

And in the original position behind the veil of ignorance, we would recognize that and reject utilitarianism.

We wouldn't trade off our fundamental rights and liberties for any economic advantages.

Second principle has to do with social and economic inequalities.

Remember, we don't know whether we're going to wind up rich or poor.

We don't know what kind of family we're going to come from.

or whether we will come from an impoverished family.

say, "Well let's require an equal distribution of income and wealth."

Even if we're unlucky and wind up at the bottom.

We could do better if we agree to a qualified principle of equality.

Rawls calls it  "the Difference Principle".

A principle that says, only those social and economic

inequalities will be permitted  that work to the benefit of the least well off.

So we wouldn't reject all inequality of income and wealth.

do they work to the benefit of everyone including those,

Only those inequalities would be  accepted behind the veil of ignorance.

And so Rawls argues, only those  inequalities that work to the benefit

Michael Jordan making  31 million dollars a year.

Of Bill Gates having a fortune  in the tens of billions.

Would those inequalities be permitted  under the difference principle?

Only if they were part of a system,  those wage differentials,

that actually work to the  advantage of least well off.

Maybe it turns out that  as a practical matter

to attract the right  people to certain jobs.

And when you do, having  those people in those jobs

Strictly speaking, Rawls's argument  for the difference principle

is that it would be chosen  behind the veil of ignorance.

Rawls's claim that these two  principles would be chosen

Is there anyone who disagrees that they would be chosen?

Alright, let's start up in the  balcony, if that's alright.

OK, your argument depends  upon us believing that

we would argue in said policy,  or justice from a bottom.

And I just don't see from  a proof standpoint,

Put yourself behind  the veil of ignorance.

Well, I would say things like,  even Harvard's existence