[MUSIC] Justice: An Introduction. In the previous unit we saw a number of different answers to the question, why should we have the state? Answers that focused on a possible role for the state in promoting happiness or the general welfare. Many of these rationales describe what might be called. Rationales or principles of beneficence. So these answers, this family of answers suggests that there would be something good. About say, providing public goods or solving collection action problems. So this might be morally important because it might be a morally good thing to do. Or because it's morally good to make people happier. Or to make the world the better place. In this unit on justice, and the further units on freedom and equality. The focus will change somewhat. From what would be good for us in the way in which the state might contribute to bringing that about. To what we do or may have a right to, in some sense a moral right. So these arguments will concern not just what would be good to do. But about what we are morally required to do or what we are morally prohibited from doing. So we're shifting to think about arguments concerning moral requirements and the constraints that the state can help us satisfy. Or which we must make sure the state does not undermine. When you use the state to bring about good outcomes of welfare and happiness that we've been talking about so far. So, although this isn't a completely uncontroversial way to put the point. We might say that the first unit focused on answers to the question of why should we have a state. That were based on what would be morally good to do. The next several units focus on considerations that are based not just on what would be morally good, but on what is morally required. So justice itself is a complicated, multi-faceted concept. Which does a lot of different work in a lot of different contexts. And somewhat unfortunately, many of these contexts, run together and discussions of moral philosophy and political philosophy. So in this next section, I want to go through some of that. And try to get a little bit clearer on the different senses of justice and the ones we'll be concerned with. So, some people talk about justice in the context of a proper alignment. Between what people do, what people are responsible for on the one hand and what happens to them. So, in this sense we say that it's just when good things happen to people who have done good things. And when bad things happen to people who have done bad things. So, there's a kind of harmonious matching between what people get and what they morally deserve. So we can call this the action-matching sense of justice. Justice in this sense concerns whether what we get matches with our actions with what we've done. So it's in this sense in which we talk about finding the perpetrator of a crime and bringing that person to justice or making sure that justice is done. Some people talk about Retributive Justice under this heading. Although, as we'll discuss in the section on prisons and punishment, that's more of a particular view about what criminal justice is about. So on the other more positive side the state can play a role in making sure that good deeds are rewarded. So some think the view that we should be able to keep the rewards of our effort and labor is supported on these kinds of justice grounds. So, I deserve, morally speaking, to have these good things, because I worked hard for them. It is just, we might say, that I get what I've earned. Of course, these claims are controversial, in part because it can be controversial. How much each of us as individuals can really claim credit for doing anything on our own. So we might think the difference between a person who makes a lot of money through her labor and a person who does not. Might have a lot to do with arbitrary facts about talents and abilities that one is born with. And for which none of us can claim any credit so they're not a part of our actions. And about the opportunities and support one has had a result of one's particular upbringing and local environment. And further, about the world in which one lives and the possibilities there are. So before there's a professional basketball league, being a really good basketball player won't make you a lot of money. And we can imagine other kinds of examples where you might have certain abilities. But you won't get rewarded in the way that you will once there's the right kind of market in place. Another way in with this, in which this action matching sense of justice is controversial. Is that some argue, that we deserve, or have a right to, certain things, simply in virtue of our standing, regardless of what we do, or have done. So, it doesn't focus on our actions, it focuses more on what we're like, in some sense. I'll say more about that. So, the above set of discussions about justice, focus on what we deserve, based on what we have done. Or, somewhat more precisely, based on what philosopher's say, we are morally responsible for doing. So we might be casually responsible for doing something, without being morally responsible for doing it. We'll talk more about that in later sections. Other discussions of justice distinct from these kind of action matching ones. Focus on arguments about what we deserve or are entitled to or have a right to. Simply in virtue of having a certain kind of standing. So some examples maybe being a human being, or being a citizen, or being subject to the coercive force of the state. Or being a member of a society or a political community. Or more broadly even being a creature with certain interests. Or a creature that can experience pleasure and pain. It might be enough just to be one of those things. To have that form of standing. And then you'll be entitled to certain kinds of things. Or at least that's the suggestion that these more standing-based views of justice make. So if used in this context focus on what we're morally entitled to. Both in terms of distribution of goods and resources. Including things like money, power, education, utility, we'll talk more about that. And stuff of all kinds. So that's on the distribution side. And in terms of the process by which things happen to us or by which decisions are made. So the first category concerns what's called Distributive Justice. The second category concerns what's called Procedural Justice. So some people think that there are two categories here. Others think that the just procedures are whichever ones generate a just distribution. So the procedural stuff is sort of less important in some sense than the distributive stuff. We can put these discussions to the side for now, although we'll come back to them. What I want to stress here is the ways in which action matching and standing based use of justice might interact with each other. So, on one understanding of the relationship. Standing based views set a sort of minimum that all who have the relevant standing are owed. And then action matching considerations can enter in only to add to this minimum to increase it. So perhaps we can not even identify what each of us is responsible for without first having a clear view regarding what each of us is entitled to. Simply in virtue of our standing. So on a different kind of view, some people just reject the action matching idea. And think its misguided or backwards, attributing to us a kind of freedom or individual moral responsibility. That it's implausible, and what should be replaced by a standing base view. Or perhaps a utilitarian or consequentialist view. We'll talk more about both of those soon. So on a third kind of view the action matching idea is taken to be the more central one. With what we are owed simply in virtue of our standing being something very minimal. So maybe there does set a floor, but it's really low. Or maybe something entirely negative so in virtue of our standing we're owed certain kinds of freedom from interference. We have a right now to be harmed or something like that. So perhaps it's good to so more for people or other countries. But there are no rights or moral entitlements to have these goods provided as a matter of distributive justice. And then on this kind of view. Distributive questions should be almost entirely resolved. By thinking about what people have done, by the action matching considerations. Those are what do almost all of the work. So we'll get into much of this in more detail. In this unit and the units on freedom and equality. In the next several segments, we'll consider views that focus on concerns about distributive justice. And on arguments that say the state in particular has a special role to play in bringing about distributive justice.
