to the question of distributive justice.

How should income and wealth and power

and opportunities be distributed?

According to what principles?

John Rawls offers a detailed answer to that question.

And we're going to examine and assess his answer to that question today.

We put ourselves in a position to do so last time.

By trying to make sense of why he thinks. That principles of justice

are best derived from a hypothetical contract.

And what matters is that the hypothetical contract be carried out in an original position of equality

behind, what Rawls calls, the veil of ignorance.

So that much is clear?

Alright, then let's turn to the principles

that Rawls says would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance.

First, he considered some of the major alternatives.

What about utilitarianism?

Would the people in the original position choose to govern their collective lives

utilitarian principles, the greatest good for the greatest number

No, they wouldn't, Rawls says.

And the reason is,

that behind the veil of ignorance, everyone knows

that once the veil goes up, and real life begins,

we will each want to be respected with dignity.

Even if we turn out to be a member of a minority.

We don't want to be oppressed.

And so we would agree

to reject utilitarianism, and instead to adopt

as our first principle, equal basic liberties.

Fundamental rights to freedom of speech,

freedom of assembly, religious liberty,

freedom of conscience and the like.

We wouldn't want to take the chance that we would wind up

as members of an oppressed or a despised minority

with the majority tyrannizing over us.

And so Rawls says utilitarianism would be rejected.

"Utilitarianism makes the mistake", Rawls writes,

"of forgetting, or at least not taking seriously,the distinction between persons."

And in the original position behind the veil of ignorance, we would recognize that and reject utilitarianism.

We wouldn't trade off our fundamental rights and liberties for any economic advantages.

That's the first principle.

Second principle has to do with social and economic inequalities.

What would we agree to?

Remember, we don't know whether we're going to wind up rich or poor.

Healthy or unhealthy.

We don't know what kind of family we're going to come from.

Whether we're going to inherit millions

or whether we will come from an impoverished family.

So we might, at first thought,

say, "Well let's require an equal distribution of income and wealth."

Just to be on the safe side.

But then we would realize,

that we could do better than that.

Even if we're unlucky and wind up at the bottom.

We could do better if we agree to a qualified principle of equality.

Rawls calls it "the Difference Principle".

A principle that says, only those social and economic

inequalities will be permitted that work to the benefit of the least well off.

So we wouldn't reject all inequality of income and wealth.

We would allow some.

But the test would be,

do they work to the benefit of everyone including those,

or as he specifies, the principle,

especially those at the bottom.

Only those inequalities would be accepted behind the veil of ignorance.

And so Rawls argues, only those inequalities that work to the benefit

of the least well off, are just.

We talked about the examples of

Michael Jordan making 31 million dollars a year.

Of Bill Gates having a fortune in the tens of billions.

Would those inequalities be permitted under the difference principle?

Only if they were part of a system, those wage differentials,

that actually work to the advantage of least well off.

Well, what would that system be?

Maybe it turns out that as a practical matter

you have to provide incentives

to attract the right people to certain jobs.

And when you do, having those people in those jobs

will actually help those at the bottom.

Strictly speaking, Rawls's argument for the difference principle

is that it would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance.

Let me hear what you think about

Rawls's claim that these two principles would be chosen

behind the veil of ignorance.

Is there anyone who disagrees that they would be chosen?

Alright, let's start up in the balcony, if that's alright.

Go ahead.

OK, your argument depends upon us believing that

we would argue in said policy, or justice from a bottom.

For the disadvantaged.

And I just don't see from a proof standpoint,

where we've proven that.

Why not the top?

Right, and what's your name? - Mike.

Mike, alright, good question.

Put yourself behind the veil of ignorance.

Enter into the thought experiment.

What principles would you choose?

How would you think it through?

Well, I would say things like, even Harvard's existence

is an example of preaching toward the top.

Because Harvard takes the top academics.

And I didn't know when I was born how smart I would be.

But I worked my life to get to a place of this caliber.

Now, if you had said Harvard's going to randomly take 1600 people

of absolutely no qualification, we'd all be saying,

"There's not much to work for."

And so what principle would you choose?

In that situation I would say a merit based one.

One where I don't necessarily know, but I would rather have a system that

rewards me based on my efforts.

So you, Mike, behind the veil of ignorance,

would choose a merit-based system,

where people are rewarded according to their efforts?

Alright, fair enough. What would you say?

Go ahead.

My question is, if the merit-based argument is based on

when everyone is at a level of equality?

Where from that position, you're rewarded to where you get,

or is it regardless of what advantages you may have

when you began your education to get where you are here?

I think what the question you're asking is saying that

if we want to look at, whatever, utilitarianism, policy,

do you want to maximize world wealth.

And I think a system that rewards merit

is the one that we've pretty much all established,

is what is best for all of us.

Despite the fact that some of us may be in the second percentile

and some may be in the 98th percentile.

At the end of the day it lifts that lowest based level,

a community that rewards effort as opposed to an differences.

But, I don't understand how you're rewards someone's efforts

who clearly has had, not you, but maybe myself,

advantages throughout, to get where I am here.

I mean, I can't say that somebody else

who maybe worked as hard as I did

would have had the same opportunity to come

to a school like this.

Alright, let's look at that point. What's your name?

Kate. -Kate, you suspect that the ability

to get into top schools may largely depend

on coming from an affluent family.

Having a favorable family background,

social, cultural, economic advantages and so on?

I mean, economic, but yes, social, cultural.

All of those advantages, for sure.

Someone did a study, of the 146 selective

colleges and universities in the United States.

And they looked at the students

in those colleges and universities

to try to find out what their background was, their economic background.

What percentage do you think, come from the bottom quarter

of the income scale?

You know what the figure is?

Only three percent of students, at the most selective colleges and universities

come from poor backgrounds.

Over 70 percent come from affluent families.

Let's go one step further then, and try to address Mike's challenge.

Rawls actually has two arguments, not one,

in favor of his principles of justice.

And in particular, of the difference principle.

One argument is the official argument,

what would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance.

Some people challenge that argument, saying,

"Maybe people would want to take their chances.

Maybe people would be gamblers behind the veil of ignorance.

Hoping that they would wind up on top."

That's one challenge that has been put to Rawls.

But backing up the argument from the original position

is the second argument.

And that is the straightforwardly moral argument.

And it goes like this,

it says,