FIL 251 Exam preparations Questions

Set out the main argument for a free market as discussed by Sandel in the chapter on
“Markets and Morals”

 A free Market is an economic system where prices are determined by

unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. Libertarians
favour free market system. Prices are determined through the supply and
demand of goods wanted by people. Buyers and sellers are allowed to freely
transact with one another. There is little government control and intervention.

 The case for free markets rests on two claims: 1) The claim for freedom and 2) the
claim for welfare.
 The claim for Freedom is the Libertarianism case for markets.
 The libertarian case- letting people engage in voluntary exchanges respects their
freedom.
 Laws that interfere with the free market are seen to violate individual liberty.
 The claim for welfare is a Utilitarian Case for markets.
 The utilitarian case says that free markets promote the general welfare.
 The general welfare – when two people make a deal – they both gain.
 As long as their deal makes them better off without hurting anyone else – it increases
overall utility.

Explain the difference between Tacit Consent and Hypothetical consent as set out by
Rawls

 John Locke describes tacit consent.

 John Locke suggests that anyone who benefits from the law, implicitly gives their
consent to the law and should be bound by it.
 Anyone who enjoys the benefits provided from the government- implicitly consents to
the law.
 This tacit consent can be described as permission that is granted through the conduct
or actions of an individual.

 Immanuel Kant appeals to Hypothetical consent.

 This hypothetical consent argues, that a law is just, if it could have been agreed to by
the public as a whole.
 Hypothetical consent is assumed consent- this is the assumption that consent would
have been given under the circumstances.

Explain what Moral desert Means

 The moral desert refers to a conception of one being deserving of something.
 This concept refers that individuals could morally deserve to the punishment, blame,
justice, benefits or rewards.
 The concept of a Moral desert implies that people are deserving of the consequences to
their actions whether the consequences are bad or good.
 If the individual is found to be deserving of the consequences – it is morally just.
 It refers to the notion that receiving what one deserves is just and receiving what is
undeserved is unjust.
 Explain Rawl’s Notions of the ‘Original Position’ and the ‘veil of ignorance’
 The original position is a position suggested by John Rawls in a hypothetical
situation.
 The original position is the position in which we should think about the principles
of justice. The original position is a way of thinking about justice in which we do not
know our own circumstances.
 We are to think about the structure of justice through an original position of
equality that is achieved by a veil of ignorance.
 The Original position is the position in which we will choose our justice system by
not knowing our current or future circumstances.
 The justice system that develops from the original position of equality is seen as
morally ‘just,’ because there will be no influences of the obligations of individuals
towards their own self-interests.

 The veil of ignorance works together with the original position of equality.
 It is the Veil of ignorance that allows the original position of equal thinking to be
possible.
 When we are to decide on a justice system- John Rawls suggests that people are to
think of justice principles without knowing of anything about them.
 It is the veil of ignorance thinking that prevents us from knowing anything about
who we are.
 The veil of ignorance prevents us from knowing our race, gender, political opinions
and social status when we are deciding of a justice system.
 This veil of ignorance provides for the system to be just and fair for all.
 The veil of ignorance ensures the quality of power and knowledge that the original
position requires.

Explain Aristotle’s idea of the Good life

 Aristotle’s theory of justice consists of two ideas- Justice is teleological and – Justice is
honorific.
 Aristotle believes that debates about justice are, unavoidably, debates about
honour, virtue, and the nature of the good life.
 Aristotle suggests that justice and the good life are connected.
 The good life idea proclaims that the purpose of politics is to form good citizens
and to cultivate good character.
 The idea of the good life comes from Aristotle’s claim that politics is about
learning how to live a good life.
 Politics should enable people to develop their distinctive human capacities and
virtues – to deliberate the common good, to acquire practical judgment, to share
in self-government, to care for the fate of the community as a whole.

 Politics is essential to the good life.

 First – the laws of polis create good habits, form good character, and set us on the
way to civic virtue.
 Second- the life of the citizen enables us to exercise capacities for deliberation
and practical wisdom.
 To think about a just political order, we have to reason from the nature of the
good life.
 We cannot frame a just constitution until we first figure out the best way to live.
Name and explain the kind of reasoning employed by Aristotle in arguing that the good
life is an ‘end’ or ‘purpose’ in itself.

 Aristotle’s theory of justice is centered around two ideas:

 Justice is teleological
 Justice is honorific
 The idea of Teleological reasoning states that in defining rights, we are required to
figure out the telos (the purpose, end or essential nature of the social practice in
question.
 Aristotle reasoning is teleological in that he reasons from a certain conception of the
human good.
 According to Aristotle – The good life is the purpose or goal of political activity.
 For Aristotle the purpose of politics, which is to create the conception of the good life,
is to form good citizens and to cultivate good character.
 The good life extends from political activity that eases economic exchange, provides for
the common defense; and enables the cultivation of good character and good citizens.
 Aristotle suggests that we become good at deliberating only by being citizens.
 Aristotle reasons that citizenship is an expression of our nature that allows us to
unfold our human capacities which is essential to the good life.

Briefly outline Aristotle’s idea of distributive justice.

Who deserves what?
What does Aristotle consider to be the proper allocation of the good?
 Aristotle thinks that justice means giving people what they deserve, giving each person
his or her due.
 Justice involves two factors: ‘Things, and the persons to whom things are assigned.”
 Each good is made for a purpose.
 Aristotle suggests that those who can best realize the purpose of the good ought to
have it.
 The purpose of a good determines the allocation of the good.
 The distribution of a good is in accordance with the Teleological reasoning.
 The purposes of a good will indicate the appropriate way of distributing it.
 Aristotle claims that in order to determine the just distribution of a good, we have to
inquire into the telos, or purpose, of the good being distributed.
 In turn, the nature of the person determines whether they should or should not be
allocated with the specific good.
 The person’s, whose nature best fits with the purpose of the good, is most appropriate
for the use and acquisition of the good.

Moral Individualism
 The Doctrine of Moral Individualism
 It is a claim about what it means to be free.
 It suggests that an individual is to be subject only to the obligations that they
voluntarily incur.
 Whatever an individual owes to others, they owe by some act of consent.
 It is a notion that an individual’s responsibilities are limited to the responsibilities that
they take upon themselves.
 It assumes that individuals are free and independent selves, unbound by prior moral
ties, choosing our ends for ourselves.
  The free choice of each individual is the source of the only moral obligations that
constrains them.
 This vision of freedom leaves little room for collective responsibility or for duty to bear
the moral burden of historic injustices perpetuated by our predecessors.
 We are only bound to the obligations that we voluntarily enter in. we cannot be bound
to the actions of people that we are not involved in, or haven’t not given consent to.

 Moral individualists are autonomous.

 Freedom is about choice
 We are only responsible for what we ourselves do.
 Moral individualists are free insofar as they voluntarily place moral obligations
upon themselves.
 Individuals do not accept accountability for the things that are not caused by
them

Explain Sandel’s notion of solidarity

 Solidarity is the unity of interests, objectives, standards and sympathies. It relates to
the ties or common values and perceptions of a society.
 The notion of solidarity is created because we cannot reason about justice by
abstracting from our aims and attachments.
 It is a relativist view that justice is simply whatever a particular community defines it
to be.
 Sandel’s notion of solidarity acknowledges the moral weight of a community.
 Sandel proposes that in addition to our natural and voluntary obligations – we have
obligations of solidarity or membership.
 The obligation of solidarity or membership is not universal, it is particular; and it does
not depend on an act of consent.
 The notion of solidarity acknowledges special obligations that are derived from a
person’s life story, such as the community in which they live or to the family in which
they belong.

What is a voluntarist conception?

 This is a liberal conception
 This conception states that we only have two obligations: our natural obligations that
we owe to human beings and our voluntary obligations that we incur by our consent.
 In this conception we are to respect the dignity of all persons, but beyond all, we owe
only what we agree to owe.
 In this conception, the average citizen has no special obligation to his or her fellow
citizens.
 There are no obligations beyond our natural and voluntary obligations to not commit
injustice.
 The conception fails to account for the special obligations of solidarity that we have to
one another as fellow citizens.
 The conception proclaims that a citizen has no political or communal obligation unless
they voluntarily bring it upon themselves.
 Moral reflection requires that the individual set aside their identities and
encumbrances.
What is the Narrative Conception of Persons?
 Alasdair MacIntyre presents a Narrative Conception of persons.
 This Narrative conception gives an account of how we, as moral agents, arrive at our
purposes and ends.
 This conception states that human beings are storytelling beings.
 The Narrative conception is an alternative to the voluntarist conception.
 All individuals have a teleological character.
 We live our lives as a narrative quest.
 Moral deliberation is about interpreting one’s life story.
 Moral deliberation involves a reflection within and the life stories that one is a part of.
 There is a narrative aspect of moral reflection that consists of membership and
belonging.
 The narrative account is at odds with modern individualism.
 The Narrative conception is in clear contrast with the voluntarist conception of
person’s as freely choosing, unencumbered selves.
 The Narrative conception of persons sees the liberal, voluntarist conception of
obligation as too thin.
 The Narrative conception claims that we should not set aside our identities when we
are deliberating about morality and justice.
 Our identities are to be included in moral deliberation because they are a part of who
we are and bear a part on our moral responsibilities.
 The narrative conception includes the obligations of solidarity or membership.
 The narrative conception recognizes the moral weight of recognizing that one’s life
story is influenced by the life story of others around them.

Why is agreement or consent, on its own, not adequate to make a contract or

other arrangements fair? Discuss the ways in which agreement is not
adequate. What is the relevance of Rawl’s hypothetical agreement for the
fairness of actual agreements?

John Rawls argues that we should think of the justice structure by determining what
principles we would agree on in an initial situation of equality.
Rawl’s create the idea of a social contract, which is a hypothetical agreement in an original
position of equality. It consists of the principles we would deduce if we did not know any of
our circumstance such as where we come from or who we are. The contract is hypothetical
because it is assumed that we do not know who we actually are, and the original position is
not reality. We have to pretend or imagine ourselves in this rational, equal and fair
position. From this position, the principles of justice that we decide upon will be just. We
are to be behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ where we do not know anything about our individual
characteristics, appearance, qualities or status.

An actual contract or deal made between two parties is not enough to state that the terms
in the contract are just. Actual contracts are not moral instruments.
No actual contract or constitutional agreement is said to bring about fair and just terms.
Actual contracts carry moral weight as they realize two ideals – autonomy and reciprocity.
Autonomy- they carry a weight because they are self-imposed and we take them freely
upon ourselves on our own independent grounds. Contracts offer a mutual benefit that
shows the ideal of reciprocity. There is an obligation to repay others for the benefits they
provide us.
  Consent alone cannot be enough to create morally binding obligations
 Consent may not be necessary.

Contingencies can lead to bad deals:

One party may be a better negotiator
One party could have a stronger bargaining position
Or one party could know more about the value of the things being exchanged.

Voluntary exchanges can be unfair as one party could know more about the goods
being exchanged and their value, and can use this to their advantage. Due to the lack
of information and knowledge by one party, their simple consent does not mean
that it is enough. It could be seen that the voluntary contract or agreement that had
consent can be unfair and is unjust as it can possess an element of exploitation.

In some cases, consent is not essential. This is a benefit- based obligation.

The fairness or moral binding of a contract depends on more than just consent and
an agreement. As there are contingencies with the consent given It involves more
that actual consent and needs the ideals of Autonomy and reciprocity. The moral
force and fairness comes into terms of the autonomy of the contract, knowledge of
both parties should be on an equal understanding and both should receive an equal
mutual benefit from the contract.

The concept of distributive justice deals with the fair distribution of goods in
society.
Using examples, explain 3 main strands of redistributive justice?
What is Rawl’s objection to these and how does his theory depart from the
positions of the former?
Also consider possible objections by Sandel.

Rawl’s theory towards justice would be to decide our principles of justice behind a
veil of ignorance in an original position of equality.
We would not choose the principle of utilitarianism, because we would not know
where we would end up in society, therefore we will want to pursue ends that we
would be treated equally and with respect. We would not want to form part of the
minority or be oppressed even if this gives pleasure to the majority.

With Rawl’s theory we would accept the principle of equal basic liberties for all
citizens. We would not sacrifice our fundamental rights and liberties for social and
economic benefits.
We would need to choose a principle to govern economic and social inequalities.
Rawl provides a theory of the difference principle. Permitting certain inequalities in
a way that could benefit those who have the least does this.

Rival Theories of Justice:

 Justice of feudal aristocracies or caste systems

 Rawl’s sees these systems as unfair because they distribute income, wealth
opportunity and power according to the accident of birth. He sees your
circumstances of birth to be arbitrary and no doing of yours. So it is unjust.
This is a fixed hierarchy based on birth.
Distributive shares are seen to be arbitrary from a moral point of view. There
is a contingency in this system.

 Libertarianism

This system responds to the Free Market and formal equality of opportunity.
Legally it allows everyone to strive and compete.
Rawl’s argues that the distributive justice that results from a free market with
equal opportunity cannot be seen as just.
The distributive shares can be influenced by factors so arbitrary from a moral
point of view.
Those with supporting families and good education can have an advantage
over others.
There is an inequality in the forms of competition amongst individuals.
Rawls doesn’t believe that the opportunities are equal in the free market as
each individual starts at a different starting point in life.

 Meritocracy

A free market with fair equal opportunity.

It removes obstacles to achievement by providing equal opportunities for all.
So the poor families can compete on an equal basis with those from more
privileged backgrounds.
It brings everyone to the same starting point.
Rawl’s believes that meritocracy corrects for the moral arbitrariness
advantages, but still falls short of justice.
Even if you bring everyone to the same starting point, some will still have
advantages over others.
According to Rawl it still allows for the distribution of wealth and income to
be determined by the natural distribution of abilities and talents.
The distributive shares are determined by a natural lottery; and this is
arbitrary from a moral point of view.
It is flawed because of social contingencies and natural chances.

To correct these contingencies and the moral arbitrariness, Rawl’s presents

the Egalitarian Theory. This theory sets to correct for the unequal natural
endowments of others.
Rawl’s alternative to the Meritocratic theory is the “difference Principle”
where he does not handicap the talented or those who are advantaged; but he
does correct for the unequal distribution of talents and endowments.
The difference principle encourages the gifted to develop their abilities and to
exercise their talents, but with the understanding that the rewards that these
endowments reap in the market belong to the community as a whole.
The rewards do not belong to them alone, but should be shared with those
who lack the abilities of similar gifts.
The difference principle does not require an equal distribution of wealth and
income.
 It regards the distribution of natural talents to be a common asset for the
community. The community will share in the rewards.

Possible objections towards Rawl’s difference theory

 Incentives

If the talented benefit from their endowments only to benefit others with
their achievements, they might decide to work less and not develop their
skills and abilities in the first place.
Rawl’s argues that by permitting inequalities creates an incentive to work and
develop to improve the lot of the least advantaged.

 Efforts

Rawl’s rejects the meritocratic conception on the grounds that the people’s
natural endowments and abilities are not of their own doing.
Rawl does not consider the hard work done by people in order to improve
their talents.
Rawl’s reply to this is that effort could also be a product of our own
upbringing.

‘Distributive justice is not a matter of rewarding moral desert’

A moral desert is an idea that the distribution of benefits in society should

only be given to those who deserve them. The benefits they receive are
determined by their own achievements.
Rawls is against the contingency of people’s initial conditions. He believes
they cannot claim credit for abilities and talents that are not their own.

He states that one does not deserve justice, but one is worthy of justice by the
virtue of being a human being.

Rawl’s rejects moral desert as a form of distributive justice on two grounds.

Having the talents that enable one to compete more successfully those others
is not entirely your own doing.
The qualities that society value at a given time are also morally arbitrary.
If “Moral desert” implies that the manner in which justice is distributed is determined
by citizen’s merits or achievements, why and how does Rawl’s reject ‘moral desert’ as a
basis for an argument on distributive justice?
What place does he still accord to entitlement and how does it fit into his theory of
justice?

 The Moral desert refers to a conception of one being deserving of something.

 The moral desert identifies that individuals could morally deserve the punishment,
blame, justice or the benefits of their actions.
 People are deserving of the consequences to their actions, regardless of if they are bad
or good.
 If the individual deserves the consequence – it is seen as morally just.
 The benefits an individual receives should be because the individual rightfully
deserves them.
 Rawl’s rejects the moral desert because he supports the notion that there is moral
arbitrariness in the talents and abilities of individuals.
 To Rawl’s distributive justice is not a matter of rewarding moral desert.
 Rawl’s rejects the moral desert on the grounds that there is a contingency in the initial
position of people.
 He proclaims that people cannot be deserving of rewards that are reaped by their
natural abilities and talents that are not their own doing.
 He proclaims that one does not deserve justice, but one is worthy of justice by the
virtue of being a human being.
 Having a talent that enables one to compete more successfully than others is not
entirely your own doing, therefore, you do not deserve the rewards.
 Rawls also argues against the moral desert, on the grounds, that society values
different quality at different times – which is morally arbitrary.
 The distributive justice is about meeting the ‘legitimate expectations’ that arise once
the rules of the game are in place.
 Rawls meeting legitimate expectations allows us to ‘share one another’s fate’ which
will allow for a common benefit in society.
 In Rawl’s theory this coincides with his idea that society should benefit as a whole from
the talents and the abilities of the naturally gifted.
Aristotle and the purpose of politics
How should political authority be distributed?
Why should we participate in politics?

 Aristotle’s theory of justice involves the ideas that justice is teleological and honorific.
 Justice is teleological in the sense that, when defining our rights, we should first
determine the purpose, end or nature of the social practice.
 Justice is honorific in the sense that we should reason and argue about what virtues
justice should honour and office.

 Aristotle believes that justice is connected to honour, virtue and the nature of the good
life.
 To Aristotle, distributive justice is about offices and honours.
 In accordance with teleological reasoning, before we can say how political rights and
authority should be distributed, we have to first determine the purpose, or telos of
politics.
 The aim is to determine the purpose of political activity.

 Political activity is open to various ends.

 We cannot frame a just constitution until we figure out the best way to live.
 For Aristotle, politics should ease economic exchange, provide for a common defense,
cultivate good character and form good citizens.
 Politics should in essence, cultivate civic virtue and good character.
 The highest end of political association is to cultivate the virtue of citizens and realize
the good life.
 The main purpose of politics is to realize the good life.
 Politics is about learning how to live a good life.
 Politics should enable people to develop their distinctive human capacities and virtues.
 People should be able to deliberate about the common good.
 People should be able to acquire practical judgment
 Politics should allow people to share in self-government and to care for the community
as a whole.
 Politics should constitute a shared way of life that shapes the character of its
participants.
 Aristotle claims that a political community exists to promote the good life.
 In theory the purpose of a good determines how it should be appropriately distributed.
 Those whose nature best associates with the purpose of politics should be distributed
with political positions and authority.
 Authority should be distributed to those who excel in civic virtue and are best at
deliberating about the common good.
 People who display the greatest civic virtue should merit the highest offices and
honours.

 Aristotle believes that participating in politics is essential to living the good life.
 This is because of our human nature.
 Aristotle sees us as beings ‘meant for political association’
 It is only through political association that we can fully realize our nature as human
beings.
 We are meant for political association because we possess the faculty of language.
 We are able to verbally deliberate and debate about what is just and unjust; and what
is right and wrong.
 It is only through political association that we can exercise our distinctly human
capacity for language; which is why we should participate in political activity.
 It is politics that allows us to exercise our distinctly human capacities and deliberate on
the morality of justice.
Question 9
Considerations of Sandel in ‘the common good’ to the principles of liberalism,
libertarianism, and utilitarianism?
The shortcomings of liberalism, libertarianism, and utilitarianism, according to Sandel
Ways that “the common good” addresses or remedies the shortcomings.

 There are 3 approaches to justice. The utilitarian approach, the egalitarian liberal and
libertarian approach as well as the approach to justice that involves cultivating virtue
and reasoning about the common good.

 The utilitarian approach aims to maximize utility or welfare and supports the greatest
happiness for the greatest number.
 The utilitarian approach has several shortcomings.
 It makes justice and rights a matter of calculation and not principle.
 The cost-benefit analysis is misguided and fails to respect individual rights and
freedom.
 All moral and human goods are translated into a single currency of value. This causes
the approach to fail to capture the qualitative differences among all human goods.

 The second approach to justice respects the freedom of choice – the actual choices
people make in a free market (libertarian) or the hypothetical choices that people
would have made in an original position of equality (liberal egalitarian)
 This approach is able to respect individual rights and addresses one of the
shortcomings of the Utilitarian Approach.
 These Freedom-based theories take justice seriously and account for individual rights
and human freedom.
 However, these theories cannot assign a weight to the rights; and do not challenge the
preferences and desires people have in public life.
 This shortcoming reveals to us that a just society cannot be achieved only through
maximum utility and freedom of choice.

 The third approach to justice addresses the shortcomings of the others and reasons
between the meaning of the good life and civic virtue.
 Michael Sandel himself supports this third approach.
 This approach presents the concept of ‘the common good’ and it produces several
themes.
 Citizenship, sacrifice and service
 The moral limits of markets
 Inequality, solidarity and civic virtue
 Politics of Moral Engagement

 It is throughout these themes that we see a just society system.

 Society requires a strong sense of community by its citizens
 Its citizens should have a concern for the community as a whole.
 A just society should have citizen dedication to the common good.
 It requires the cultivation of civic culture among citizens; where the notions of
solidarity and mutual responsibility exist.
 Society should determine the right ways of valuing key social practices and hold public
debates about the moral limits of markets.
 There should be a focus on the redistribution of the infrastructure of civic life and
respecting convictions.
 A just society from ‘the common good approach’ requires cultivating civic virtue
among citizens and the advocacy of the common good – its considers and aspires for
the best for society as a whole.