Phil 190R – Seminar on Rawls Short Quiz #1

Anderson

1. Justice trumps utility. In effect, Rawls is saying that laws and social policies designed to increase GNP should not be enacted even if they bring about a net benefit to the more well off when they can only do so by imposing a net cost on the less well off. T or F

2. Give an example of an injustice of the sort described in item 1 above.

3. It is a logical implication of 1 above that simple majority rule in a democracy will not guarantee just laws. T or F

4. According to Rawls, the idea that justice trumps utility is a value judgment that we (i.e. the general public) all intuitively share. T or F

5. Is the following a counterexample to Rawls’ claim that justice should trump utility? Over the past 30 years or so, corporate management has given their workers the following grim choice: Either accept a reduction in wages or benefits, such as health insurance, or we will close the factory gates and move offshore. In most cases, the workers have consented to taking reduced wages/benefits rather than risk going without a job. All of this is perfectly legal in American law.

So Rawls is mistaken. Utility often trumps justice. T or F

6. Rawls focuses on major social institutions as the primary subject of social justice because they have such a profound effect on a person’s prospects in life and yet they cannot be avoided (we are “born into them”). Give an example of how a major social institution can profoundly affect a person’s prospects in life.

7. Regarding the justice or injustice of major social institutions, Rawls says they cannot possibly be justified on the grounds of merit or desert. Explain his point here. Hint: Merit and desert are attributes of persons. Are social institutions persons?

8. The social contract approach to justifying a moral principle rests on the assumption that a contract is a kind of promise made and therefore, once one voluntarily agrees to the terms of the contract (assuming no deceit or coercion is involved) one is justifiably under an obligation to meet the terms of the contract. T or F

9. Rawls’ argument for his principles of justice rests on the idea of a hypothetical contract. We are to accept certain principles as the true principles of justice provided we would agree to them under conditions that were fair.

Objection: Hypothetical contracts aren’t real contracts and only real contracts are binding.

A possible reply: The character of a person includes more than what they actually do with their life, it also includes what they would do under certain hypothetical conditions that may or may not happen to occur. Therefore, it can be as important to know what a person would do under certain well-defined but hypothetical circumstances as what they in fact do under actual circumstances. Therefore, Rawls’ “original position” is a legitimate way of determining the principles of justice.

Is this a convincing reply?

10. The contract that results from the original position is not simply one that you would endorse, it has to be one that all rational persons would endorse. T or F