Justice is one of those things that people talk about all the time, without really being specific about what they mean. Activists talk about economic justice. Police and lawyers talk about criminal justice. Parents, teachers, and students talk about justice a lot, too, though they may never use that word. When there’s a fight on the playground, or you get a grade you think you don’t deserve, we find ourselves talking about what’s fair. And that is talking about justice. And we think we know what it is, but we probably
don’t – or at least, we don’t agree. Is justice about equality? Fairness? Getting
what we deserve? Or getting what we need? Sometimes we talk about balancing the scales
of justice. This goes back to an ancient Greek understanding
of justice as harmony. In this view, a just society is one in which everyone fulfills their roles, so that society runs smoothly. In that case, violating your place in the social order – even if it’s a place you don’t want to hold – is considered unjust. Other times, justice has been understood in a more utilitarian way, where a just society is one that tries to increase the overall quality of life for its citizens. And for a political libertarian, a just society is simply one that allows its citizens to be maximally free. So which is it? Is justice buying a meal for someone in need? Is it sending a criminal to jail? Is it doling out rewards and punishments based
on merit? The reason people talk about justice all the time is that it’s one of the most fundamental social, ethical, and moral principles we deal with every day. And in the end, what justice means to you personally, pretty much defines how you think society should work. [Theme Music] You might have already noticed this, but when people talk about justice, a lot of the time, they’re really talking about stuff. Like, who has more stuff – whether that’s money, food, or access to services like healthcare and sanitation. Who gets to decide who gets what?
And on what basis? The area of moral philosophy that considers these questions is known as distributive justice, and there are many different schools of thought here. For example, some people believe that everyone should get the same kind and amount of stuff, no matter what. This concept is known as justice as equality. It sounds totally fair. But, is everyone getting the same stuff really
justice? Because I need – or want – different kinds
and amounts of stuff than you do. So, there’s also the idea of need-based
justice. This says everyone shouldn’t get the same,
because our needs aren’t the same. By this logic, justice is getting based on
what we need. So those who need more, get more. And some say that this makes sense, while others argue that it amounts to favoring some people over others, putting those who happen to not be in need, at a disadvantage. And if that’s how you look at things, then you probably espouse some kind of merit-based justice, which says that justice actually means giving unequally, based on what each person deserves. And you deserve stuff – or don’t – based
on what you’ve done. So this view rewards hard work and punishes
trouble-makers. Finally, there’s the very simple-sounding approach advanced by twentieth century American political philosopher John Rawls. He argued that justice is fairness. Any inequalities that exist in a social system, Rawls said, should favor the least well-off, because this levels the playing field of society. This is a form of need-based justice that focuses specifically on making sure that everyone is actually in a position to achieve their basic needs. Rawls reasoned that the world is full of natural
inequalities. Think of all the things we talked about when
we discussed moral luck; a lot of factors that will shape your life
are totally out of your control. So Rawls’ sense of justice means correcting for those disadvantages that are beyond our control. Once again, there are some who argue that justice-is-fairness is actually unfair to those who have gotten the most – either through hard work, or because they happened to win life’s natural lottery. 20th century American philosopher Robert Nozick
disagreed with Rawls’ idea that justice-is-fairness. And to demonstrate why, he posed this thought experiment, about professional basketball, which we will explore in the Thought Bubble with some Flash Philosophy. Wilt Chamberlain was a wildly popular basketball
player when Nozick created this example. So Nozick said: What if Chamberlain – probably the most famous athlete of his day – decided that he’d play only under certain conditions? Suppose that Chamberlain decides that tickets for games he plays in should cost 25 cents more than games he doesn’t play in. And what’s more, Chamberlain will be paid
$100,000 more than the other players. Now, Chamberlain is really popular, so everyone knows that more people will show up to see a game he’s playing in, even if the tickets cost more. Since he is the draw, isn’t he entitled
to ask for more money than his teammates? Nozick argued that we can’t – and shouldn’t –
try to even out the naturally uneven playing field here. Sure, we start out with unequal amounts of
stuff. But Nozick said, we’re each entitled to the stuff we have, provided we didn’t steal it or otherwise obtain it unjustly. So, if you’re the world’s most famous basketball player, you are entitled to have, and want, more stuff, even if others don’t have it. If Chamberlain’s awesomeness at basketball lets him amass a bunch of wealth, while other people go hungry, well, that’s not Wilt’s fault. Thanks, Thought Bubble! As you can see, there is a lot of disagreement
about what it means to distribute justly. And this is an incredibly important topic, because a lot of what we argue about politically has to do exactly this with issue. People who believe there are essential human rights, for example, argue that we’re simply entitled to have our most basic needs fulfilled – things like having enough to eat, and being
able to go to the doctors when we’re sick. But not everyone believes it’s the government’s job to provide us with those things, if we’re not able to get them ourselves. Those people might argue that your rights
are negative. A negative right is the right not to be interfered with, not to be stopped from pursuing the things you need. So in this view, I can’t prevent you from trying to fulfill your needs, but I don’t have to help you to fulfill them, either. By contrast, you might believe in positive
rights. If you have a positive right to something, you are entitled to help in getting it, if you can’t get it yourself. So, if you can’t afford a doctor, you have
a right to get assistance in affording one. But notice that in this view, a right implies
an obligation. Your rights – in this case, your right to see a doctor, even if you can’t afford one – might make obligatory demands on me, because I might end up helping to pay for it. Of course, someone like Nozick would ask,
where would such a right come from? How could I incur an obligation to help you,
just because I’m better off than you are? Sure, it might be nice if I helped, but it’s certainly not a duty, and no one should compel me to do it. But that’s exactly what the government does when it takes taxes from those who have more in order to assist those who have less. So you see what I mean: when people talk about taxes, and healthcare, and income inequality, they’re really talking about justice. But of course, a lot of the time, justice
isn’t at all about stuff. It’s also about punishment. Like most subjects, philosophers disagree about the most appropriate way to respond to wrongdoing. One concept is known as retributive justice. This holds that the only way for justice to be satisfied is for a wrongdoer to suffer in proportion to the way he’s made others suffer. This is your good old fashioned, Biblical,
eye-for-an-eye justice. And in this view, punishment is supposed to hurt;
that’s the only way to “make things right.” Historically, this would mean things like, if you cause physical harm to someone, your punisher must do the same thing to you. Today, though, in the interest of being civilized, we tend to mete out the pain in terms of incarceration and fines, rather than straight-up tit-for-tat. But still, just retribution is one of the driving
philosophical forces behind capital punishment; the idea that there’s simply no way to right the wrong of taking a life, other than by taking the life of the life-taker. But utilitarians have other theories of punishment. Rather than making wrongdoers suffer for suffering’s sake, these thinkers favor what’s known as welfare maximization. In this view, there’s no good to be found
in vindictively causing pain to wrongdoers. But some form of punishment is still in order. So one option is rehabilitation. Here, the approach is to give wrongdoers help, so they can learn how to get along in society and follow its rules. The focus is often on education and, if needed,
therapy. This is sometimes criticized as being paternalistic, because it carries with it the assumption that wrongdoers are in need of our help, that they don’t know any better, and that they need to be “cured” of some social disease. But another approach to just punishment is
deterrence. For eons, people have assumed that punishment prevents a wrongdoer from committing further crimes, while also discouraging others from breaking the rules. So, rather than making a wrongdoer suffer for what they’ve done, supporters of deterrence see punishment as being for the good of society as a whole. Sometimes, we punish people to send a message
to other people. One more approach to just punishment is the
concept of restorative justice. Here, you must right your wrongs. The focus is on making amends, rather than
making the wrongdoer suffer. So if you make a mess, you have to clean it
up. And if you hurt someone, you need to take
steps to try and make it right. This is the logic behind assigning community
service to offenders. The hope here is that the right approach to wrongdoing will lead to healing and growth, both for the wrongdoer and for the wronged. It’s about restoration and forgiveness – basically
the polar opposite of the retributive approach. So, take this advice: Give some thought to
your own views on these topics. Because what you see as the right answer should shape the way you vote, how you spend your money, and the way you punish your kids. You might discover that, upon reflection, you should change the way you’re doing some things. Like I said, everyone talks about justice, but before you can, you really have to decide what it means. Today we talked about various theories of
justice. We talked about just distribution, and we
also considered different approaches to punishment. Next time, we’ll talk about discrimination. Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association
with PBS Digital Studios. You can head over to their channel to check out a playlist of the latest episodes from shows like: Coma Niddy, Deep Look, and First Person. This episode of Crash Course was filmed in
the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.
Part 1 of 2
Oh hey it's another Crash Course Philosophy video that isn't so great. Let's learn why it sucks.
At 2:14 the video identifies the view that everyone should get the same amount of stuff as "justice as equality." That's not super great - typically we'd identify this as a version of egalitarianism, and we'd be careful to note that equality of stuff is just one kind of equality, as opposed to for instance equality of opportunity or equality of happiness. ("Equality of stuff" is more properly known as "equality of resources.")
Then at 2:25 the video very quickly jumps to "need-based justice," because the issue with "justice as equality" is that different people need different stuff, but philosophers who endorse "justice as equality" don't literally say that everyone gets the same stuff (you get a food processor, I get a food processor, etc. even if you don't want one) but rather everyone gets a bundle of goods worth an equal amount to them: you get $X worth of things you value, I get $X worth of things I value, etc. (It's much more complicated but you get the picture.) If you're interested in a philosopher who defends this, Ronald Dworkin is the best. Part 1 of his book Sovereign Virtue, chapter 16 of his book Justice for Hedgehogs, and his two articles entitled "What is Equality?" (there's a part 1 and part 2) are great things to read on this topic.
"Need-based justice" is also not a great category - if anything, it's worse than "justice as equality" because it doesn't line up with an actual theory the way "justice as equality" lines up with equality of resources. Rather, what the video calls "need-based justice" encompasses a wide swathe of views that share little in common and it's a bad idea to lump them all together. For instance, if I need some potatoes because I'm an idiot and I burnt the only potatoes I owned trying to summon Baphomet to curse my neighbor's cat, should I get some potatoes? There are lots of answers we can give to that question and many "need-based justice" theories differ on this.
We move on to "merit-based justice" at 2:45 which is a similarly unhelpful category. Most philosophers are a combination of all three of the views that have been mentioned, or of the latter two views. So drawing distinctions like this is kind of making a mess of things.
For instance, one of the most famous "merit-based justice" theorists is John Rawls, who argues that justice is based on merit, but that nobody merits much of anything because nobody is responsible for how hard-working or smart they are (that pretty much depends on genetics, how you were raised, where you were raised, etc.) and so his theory is that everything should be distributed in a way that puts the worst-off person in the best possible position. So, in one sense that's "merit-based justice," because he thinks merit is important, but only inosfar as nobody merits much of anything. In one sense it's "need-based justice" because things are organized so that the person who needs the most gets the most. But in another sense it's "justice as equality" because our starting point is equality, Rawls thinks, and we can only deviate from equality if the deviation would make the worst-off person's situation better. So what this video has done is drawn distinctions that cross-cut the most famous theorist of justice, plus pretty much everyone else, too. And why?!? WHY I ASK YOU?!?
OK moving on.
At 3:08, the video actually introduces Rawls, and says he's got a fourth idea of justice as fairness! The video then proceeds to do a terrible job explaining why Rawls believes what he believes. Rawls doesn't think inequalities should favor the least well-off because this levels the playing field. Rawls actually has three principles of justice, and the stuff about inequalities favoring the least well-off is the second principle of justice. The first principle of justice is that everyone should have maximal equal basic liberties compatible with the same liberties for others. The third is that all offices/jobs should be open to everyone under conditions of equal opportunity. So, the leveling the playing field stuff comes in via the third principle of justice. (Rawls actually says he has two principles of justice, but the second contains principles #2 and #3. It's confusing.) The justification for the difference principle, the fancy name for "inequalities should benefit the worst-off," is not about leveling the playing field, it's about lots of other stuff that the video doesn't mention.
At 3:24 we learn that Rawls is actually a need-based justice theorist (technically correct, but he fits in the other two categories) because he "focuses specifically on making sure that everyone is actually in a position to achieve their basic needs." But that is clearly false. Nothing about Rawls's system is based on helping people achieve their basic needs! That sort of philosophy is known as "sufficientarianism," and the idea is that everyone ought to be provided enough so that they can get by. Rawls is opposed to this kind of thinking: he thinks that the base line is equality, not achievement of one's basic needs, and that any deviation from equality must be justified. A society that helps everyone achieve their basic needs is unjust in Rawls's view.
At 3:39 the video says Rawls thinks justice is about "correcting for those disadvantages which are outside our control." But that's not true at all. Rawls thinks pretty much everything, advantages and disadvantages, are outside of our control. This doesn't mean you correct them, though. Rawls doesn't think that if you had a society full of happy people with the most possible resources they could get, you should go in and start correcting natural advantages and disadvantages. That sort of thinking is entirely alien to Rawls's system. The fact that these things are outside of our control makes it okay to mess with them by taking a "naturally" advantaged person and redistributing resources from them, if that would help improve the situation of the worst-off, but the reason we do this is for the sake of the worst-off, not to level out advantages and disadvantages. Strictly speaking, natural advantages and disadvantages are irrelevant to justice, for Rawls.
The presentation of the Wilt Chamberlain example was fine.
It starts to mess things up again at 5:24 where it identifies "people who believe that there are essential human rights" with people who "argue that we're simply entitled to have our most basic needs fulfilled." That's 100% wrong. The guy they just talked about, Robert Nozick, is one of the strongest proponents of essential human rights, and it's on the basis of these rights that he derives the idea that nobody is entitled to have their most basic needs fulfilled, because the only way you could do that is by taking stuff from people, which would violate their essential human rights. The video notices this when it discusses negative rights at 5:40 but fails to realize how this renders its earlier statement false.
Guys is CC Philosophy and Psychology worth it? I'm seriously not able to form an opinion on whether I start it or not... I am deeply interested in these topics...
It really seems that philosophical content is unusually difficult to parrot. When people without comprehensive formal training try to summarize positions that aren't their own personal interests, they get it wrong with surprising regularity. CCP seems to fall victim to this trap.
Even professionals have difficulty reconstructing philosophical content. "That's not what I meant" seems to come up in every longer paper that serves as a defense of a previous work.
Also, when profs teach new material in grad seminars, it seems like they often summarize the argument one way, find that they are wrong, admit it, and come up with a new understanding on the fly. This happened far more in philosophy seminars than it did in my biology and lit grad seminars.
I think this week's Crash Course Philosophy did quite an excellent job of exploring a contentious topic in a short amount of time, without preaching or displaying an obvious bias towards one school of thought over another.