University of Kansas, Spring 2004
Philosophy 555: Justice and Economic Systems
Ben Eggleston—eggleston@ku.edu

Test Preview / Paper Assignment—Rawls

For the Rawls part of the course, there are both (I) a test to be taken and (II) a paper to be written.

I. Test

The test will consist of 100 points’ worth of questions, including at least 60 points’ worth of the following questions. The remaining questions may be similar to these, or of a different format.

1. (10 points:) What is the difference between the concept of justice and a conception of justice?
2. (20 points:) What are the two parts into which Rawls says that any contract theory can be divided? How can a critic reject the first of these, but accept the other, and vice versa?
3. (20 points:) What are the two distinct strategies of justification that Rawls employs in order to defend his conception of justice?
4. (10 points:) What does Rawls mean when he says that utilitarianism inappropriately extends a principle that is appropriate for intrapersonal choice to the context of interpersonal choice?
5. (10 points:) What is the priority problem, and how does Rawls purport to solve it?
6. (20 points:) What is the substance of the conception of justice that Rawls advocates? (What is the content of Rawls’s “two principles”?)
7. (10 points:) What is the difference between the notion of careers open to talents and the notion of fair equality of opportunity, and why does Rawls prefer the latter to the former?
8. (20 points:) What are the essential elements (the informational constraints and the motivational constraints) of the original position?
9. (10 points:) What grounds does Rawls give for the parties’ opting (in the original position) for his conception of justice over some form of utilitarianism?
10. (10 points:) What are the two distinct points in Rawls’s theory at which the notion of pure procedural justice comes into play?
11. (10 points:) What is an example that shows how maximizing equal basic liberty involves weighing certain basic liberties against others and trying to arrive at the most desirable total package of basic liberties?
12. (20 points:) What are two of Hare’s four broad criticisms of Rawls?

The test will be given in class on Wednesday, March 10. Please bring a blank blue book or some blank paper on which to write your answers.

II. Paper

You have two options for the paper assignment, each of which involves writing a paper of not more than 2,000 words.

The first option is to develop the most effective objection to Rawls’s theory that you can. In order to formulate an objection to develop, you may wish to begin by considering that Rawls has two broad strategies of justification. One goes like this:

1. The original position is the interpretation of the initial situation that makes that situation morally significant in the sense that whatever conception of justice would be chosen there is what we, in real life, ought to regard as the best conception of justice.
2. Rawls’s conception of justice would be chosen in the original position.
3. Therefore, Rawls’s conception of justice is the best one.

The other justificatory strategy goes like this:

4. Rawls’s conception of justice has implications for specific problems that fit our intuitions about these problems better than do the implications of any other conception of justice.
5. The conception of justice whose implications best fit our intuitions is the best one.
6. Therefore, Rawls’s conception of justice is the best one.

Since statements 3 and 6 are the conclusions of their respective arguments, you can proceed by trying to undermine any of the premises giving rise to them: statements 1, 2, 4, and 5. As you know from your reading, statements 1 and 2 are argued for throughout chapters II and III, and statement 4 is argued for in Part Two. Rawls’s defense of statement 5 is less conspicuous, but some hints of how he would attempt to justify it are found in § 4, § 9, and § 87.

Each of statements 1, 2, 4, and 5 can be criticized in many ways. To undermine statement 1, you could argue that the veil of ignorance is too thick or too thin (or both, in various ways), or that what the parties in the original position are characterized as aiming at is misconceived, or that the risk-aversion attributed to them is arbitrary, or that the very idea of a contract is inapt here, or any of many other things. To undermine statement 2, you could argue that some other conception of justice than Rawls’s would be chosen there (and clearly the possibilities here are as limitless as are the alternatives to Rawls’s conception of justice). To undermine statement 4, you could argue that the implications of Rawls’s theory are unacceptable in regard to any number of things: the protection of liberties, equality of opportunity, justice between generations, the distribution of wealth and income, civil disobedience, and conscientious objection, to name just a few. Much can be said in criticism of statement 5 as well.

Because there is so much to be said in criticism of each of statements 1, 2, 4, and 5, you should pick just one of them to argue against in your paper. Note also that this assignment does not call for a comprehensive investigation of any of the four statements. No one can reasonably ask for that to be done in a 2,000-word paper. Rather, you should seize on some particular problem or cluster of problems that you find with the statement you choose to critique, and develop an objection along those lines. The topics mentioned in the paragraph before this one are provided in order to help you to see some of the general angles from which you can develop an objection to Rawls’s theory, not in order to suggest all the angles of attack on one of the statements that should be pursued in a single paper. (It is just as if I were to ask you to design a two-week vacation, and I mentioned that some possible destinations can be found in Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America. That wouldn’t mean that I would expect the resulting vacation to cover any of those continents thoroughly or evenly. Some choices, about what to attend to and what to ignore, will still have to be made. Depth should be prized over breadth.)

The second option for the paper concerns R. M. Hare’s 1973 critique of Rawls. Specifically, this option involves (1) selecting one of the four areas into which Hare divides his critique of Rawls, (2) briefly explaining the nature of Hare’s objection(s) in that area, and (3) providing the most effective rejoinder to Hare, on behalf of Rawls, that you can. So whereas the first option asks you to attack Rawls, this option asks you to defend him. As before, though, (1) you must limit the scope of your paper to just one of four listed areas and (2) the assignment does not require you to cover whatever topic you choose comprehensively because (3) depth is more important than breadth.

Regardless of which of the two options you choose, there are two due dates for this paper:

1. The first due date is for peer reading of (and commenting on) papers. You are to bring to class on Monday, March 15, two copies of your paper. Then you and two of your classmates will form a group of three and will read and comment on each other’s papers. You should bring to class two copies of as final and polished a version of your paper as you can manage, so that your peers will have the opportunity to read and comment on your best work.
2. The second due date is for turning in the final version of your paper to me. Final copies of papers will be due in class on Friday, March 19.

In writing your paper you are welcome to use resources beyond those used in class, but you do not need to do so. For additional suggestions about writing philosophy papers generally, see my “Guidelines for Writing a Philosophy Paper.”