What Is Justice?: Crash Course Philosophy #40

Summary

This script explores the multifaceted concept of justice, discussing its various interpretations across different contexts such as economic, criminal, and social justice. It delves into distributive justice theories, including equality, need-based, and merit-based approaches, and examines the philosophical perspectives of John Rawls and Robert Nozick. The transcript also covers the debate between negative and positive rights and touches on punishment theories like retributive justice, rehabilitation, deterrence, and restorative justice, emphasizing the importance of personal reflection on these concepts to shape societal views and actions.

Takeaways

• 🗣️ Justice is a multifaceted concept that encompasses various interpretations and is discussed in different contexts such as economic, criminal, and social justice.
• 👨‍🏫 The concept of justice is often tied to ideas of fairness, equality, and fulfilling societal roles, with ancient Greek views emphasizing harmony and role fulfillment.
• 📊 Distributive justice in moral philosophy deals with the allocation of resources and services, with debates on equality, need-based distribution, and merit-based rewards.
• 🔄 John Rawls proposed that social inequalities should be arranged to benefit the least advantaged, aligning with a form of need-based justice that corrects for uncontrollable disadvantages.
• 🏀 Robert Nozick countered Rawls with a thought experiment involving Wilt Chamberlain, arguing against forced equality and for the entitlement to personal gains regardless of others' conditions.
• 🤝 Positive rights imply an obligation on others to help fulfill basic needs, while negative rights are about non-interference, not guaranteeing provision but allowing pursuit.
• 👮‍♂️ Retributive justice seeks proportionate suffering for wrongdoers, often associated with 'eye-for-an-eye' punishment, including capital punishment.
• 🛠️ Utilitarian theories of punishment focus on welfare maximization, which can include rehabilitation and deterrence, aiming to prevent further wrongdoing and educate offenders.
• 🔄 Restorative justice emphasizes making amends and focuses on healing and growth for both the wrongdoer and the victim, contrasting with retributive approaches.
• 🏛️ Philosophical disagreements about justice reflect broader societal and political debates about rights, taxation, healthcare, and income inequality.
• 🤔 Personal views on justice can significantly influence one's approach to voting, spending, and even parenting, highlighting the importance of reflecting on one's own beliefs about justice.

Q & A

What is the general concept of justice according to the script?

Justice is a fundamental social, ethical, and moral principle that deals with fairness, equality, and the distribution of resources. It is often discussed in various contexts such as economic justice, criminal justice, and educational fairness, but its definition and application can vary widely among individuals and societies.

What are the different views on what constitutes a just society?

A just society can be viewed from multiple perspectives: as one where everyone fulfills their roles (ancient Greek view), one that increases the overall quality of life for its citizens (utilitarian view), or one that allows its citizens to be maximally free (political libertarian view).

What is distributive justice and why is it significant?

Distributive justice is a branch of moral philosophy that deals with the fair distribution of resources such as money, food, and access to services. It is significant because it underpins many political and social debates, including those on income inequality, healthcare, and taxation.

What is the concept of 'justice as equality' and how does it compare to other theories of justice?

'Justice as equality' suggests that everyone should receive the same kind and amount of resources. This contrasts with need-based justice, which argues for distribution based on individual needs, and merit-based justice, which advocates for unequal distribution based on what each person deserves.

How does John Rawls define justice in his theory?

John Rawls defines justice as fairness, arguing that any inequalities in a social system should benefit the least well-off. This approach focuses on ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to meet their basic needs, correcting for disadvantages that are beyond individual control.

What is Robert Nozick's disagreement with Rawls' theory of justice?

Robert Nozick disagrees with Rawls' theory, arguing against the idea that justice requires leveling the playing field. He believes that individuals are entitled to their possessions and earnings, provided they were acquired justly, and that redistributing wealth is not inherently fair.

What is the thought experiment proposed by Robert Nozick involving Wilt Chamberlain?

Nozick's thought experiment involves the hypothetical scenario where Wilt Chamberlain, a popular basketball player, demands higher ticket prices and earnings for games he plays in. This scenario is used to argue against forced redistribution of wealth, suggesting that individuals should be allowed to keep what they earn through their talents and efforts.

What are the different theories of punishment discussed in the script?

The script discusses several theories of punishment, including retributive justice (punishment as a form of retribution), welfare maximization (focusing on rehabilitation or deterrence), and restorative justice (emphasizing making amends and restoration).

What is the concept of retributive justice and how does it relate to punishment?

Retributive justice is the concept that justice is satisfied when a wrongdoer suffers in proportion to the harm they have caused. This theory supports punishment as a means of making things right, often associated with the 'eye-for-an-eye' principle.

How does the concept of restorative justice differ from retributive justice?

Restorative justice focuses on making amends and healing, rather than causing the wrongdoer to suffer. It emphasizes the need for the wrongdoer to take steps to correct their actions and restore what was damaged, often through community service or direct reparations.

What are the implications of different theories of justice on everyday life and societal structures?

Theories of justice influence how societies are structured, how resources are distributed, and how individuals are punished. They affect political decisions, economic policies, and social norms, ultimately shaping the way people interact and perceive fairness in their daily lives.

Outlines

00:00

🧐 The Concept of Justice

The first paragraph delves into the abstract and multifaceted nature of justice, a concept frequently discussed but seldom defined with precision. It highlights the various interpretations of justice, such as economic justice, criminal justice, and the everyday notions of fairness. The paragraph explores the philosophical underpinnings of justice, including its association with equality, fairness, desert, and need. It also touches on the ancient Greek view of justice as harmony and the utilitarian perspective that emphasizes the overall quality of life. The paragraph further examines different conceptions of justice, such as justice as equality, need-based justice, and merit-based justice, leading to the introduction of John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness, which corrects for natural inequalities. The discussion concludes with Robert Nozick's critique of Rawls' theory, using a thought experiment involving the basketball player Wilt Chamberlain to argue for the entitlement to one's justly acquired possessions, even if they result in inequality.

05:06

🤔 Disagreements on Distributive Justice and Punishment

The second paragraph addresses the contentious issue of how resources should be distributed within a society, a matter at the heart of many political debates. It contrasts the concepts of negative and positive rights, with the former being the right to be free from interference and the latter implying an obligation to assist others in fulfilling their needs. The paragraph then transitions to the topic of punishment, presenting various philosophical perspectives on how society should respond to wrongdoing. Retributive justice is discussed as a form of punishment that seeks to make wrongdoers suffer in proportion to the harm they have caused. It is contrasted with utilitarian approaches, which focus on welfare maximization through rehabilitation, deterrence, and restorative justice. The paragraph emphasizes the importance of reflecting on one's views regarding justice and how these views can influence personal and political decisions, concluding with a teaser for the next episode's topic on discrimination.

Keywords

💡Justice

Justice is a central theme in the video, encompassing a broad range of interpretations and applications. It is defined as the principle of fairness in how people are treated and how resources are distributed. The video explores different perspectives on justice, such as economic, criminal, and social justice, highlighting the complexity of what constitutes 'fairness'. For example, the script mentions activists discussing 'economic justice' and parents, teachers, and students considering what is 'fair' in school settings.

💡Equality

Equality is a concept closely tied to justice, often associated with the idea that everyone should be treated the same. In the context of the video, it is discussed in relation to distributive justice, where some argue that everyone should receive the same amount of resources. The script questions whether this truly represents justice, as it does not account for individual differences in needs or desires.

💡Fairness

Fairness is a fundamental aspect of justice, emphasizing the rightness or appropriateness of actions or decisions. The video script uses the term to discuss the balance of rewards and punishments, and the idea that justice involves treating people in a way that is perceived as equitable. It is contrasted with other concepts like equality and need, showing that fairness can be subjective and context-dependent.

💡Distributive Justice

Distributive justice is a branch of moral philosophy that focuses on how resources are allocated among individuals in a society. The script delves into various theories of distributive justice, such as justice as equality, need-based justice, and merit-based justice. It shows how these theories influence societal structures and policies, affecting who gets what and why.

💡Merit-Based Justice

Merit-based justice is a concept where rewards are given based on what individuals deserve, often linked to their actions or achievements. The video script contrasts this with other forms of justice, suggesting that it rewards hard work and punishes those who cause trouble. This approach is seen as promoting a system where outcomes are determined by individual effort and contribution.

💡John Rawls

John Rawls is a twentieth-century American political philosopher whose work is highlighted in the video. He proposed that justice should be about fairness, with inequalities in a social system favoring the least well-off. The script uses Rawls' theory to discuss the idea that justice involves correcting for disadvantages that are beyond individual control, aiming to level the playing field in society.

💡Robert Nozick

Robert Nozick, another American philosopher mentioned in the script, disagreed with Rawls' concept of justice. Nozick argued for a more libertarian approach, where individuals are entitled to what they have, provided it was obtained justly. He used the example of a popular basketball player to illustrate his point, suggesting that naturally occurring inequalities should not be forcibly evened out.

💡Retributive Justice

Retributive justice is a concept where punishment is seen as a necessary response to wrongdoing, with the severity of punishment matching the severity of the offense. The video script describes this as a form of 'eye-for-an-eye' justice, where the purpose of punishment is to make the wrongdoer suffer in proportion to the harm they have caused.

💡Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that focuses on maximizing overall happiness or welfare. In the context of the video, utilitarians are contrasted with retributive justice proponents, as they favor punishment that benefits society as a whole, such as rehabilitation or deterrence, rather than punishment for the sake of suffering.

💡Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is an approach to punishment that emphasizes making amends and repairing harm done by the offender. The video script describes this as a focus on healing and growth, both for the wrongdoer and the victim, rather than simply inflicting punishment. It contrasts with retributive justice by aiming to restore relationships and community harmony.

💡Positive and Negative Rights

The video script discusses the concepts of positive and negative rights in relation to justice. Negative rights are the rights not to be interfered with, such as the right to pursue one's needs without obstruction. Positive rights, on the other hand, imply an obligation on others to help fulfill those needs, such as the right to healthcare assistance. The script explores the implications of these rights in terms of individual and societal responsibilities.

Highlights

Justice is a multifaceted concept discussed in various contexts without a clear consensus on its definition.

Economic justice, criminal justice, and educational fairness are all aspects of justice discussed by different societal groups.

Ancient Greek understanding of justice as harmony suggests a just society operates smoothly with everyone fulfilling their roles.

Utilitarian view of justice aims to increase the overall quality of life for citizens.

Libertarian perspective on justice emphasizes maximal freedom for citizens.

Distributive justice in moral philosophy considers who gets what and on what basis.

Justice as equality proposes that everyone should receive the same kind and amount of resources.

Need-based justice argues for distribution according to individual needs rather than equality.

Merit-based justice suggests rewards and punishments should be based on what individuals deserve.

John Rawls' theory of justice advocates for inequalities that favor the least well-off to level the societal playing field.

Robert Nozick's disagreement with Rawls is highlighted through a thought experiment involving a popular basketball player.

Nozick argues against forced equality, stating that individuals are entitled to their justly obtained possessions.

Debates on justice involve discussions on human rights, with some arguing for essential rights to basic needs fulfillment.

Negative rights emphasize non-interference, while positive rights imply an obligation to help others meet their needs.

Retributive justice seeks proportionate suffering for wrongdoers as a means to satisfy justice.

Utilitarian punishment theories focus on welfare maximization rather than retribution.

Rehabilitation aims to help wrongdoers integrate into society by addressing the causes of their actions.

Deterrence as a form of punishment seeks to prevent further crimes through the threat of punishment.

Restorative justice emphasizes making amends and focuses on healing and growth for both wrongdoers and victims.

Personal views on justice can influence voting behavior, financial decisions, and parenting approaches.

Transcripts

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.