4.3: The Question of Distributive Justice
Watch the rest of this lecture, from 24:36 to the end. Contingencies will always exist that make the social playing field uneven. As you watch, ask yourself: should we as a society allow these inequalities to continue, or should we try to correct for them? This lecture deals with a highly divisive issue, namely whether the wealth of the most successful members of society should be redistributed through taxation to benefit the most disadvantaged. Sandel examines the libertarian, meritocratic, and egalitarian approaches to this question, and he asks students to decide which one they think is the most just.
4.3.1: Different Approaches to Justice: Retributive and Restorative
Read this article, which describes the key differences between retributive and restorative justice. In social and political philosophy, there are traditionally two major types of justice: distributive justice describes how the status, wealth, and goods in society will be portioned out from the beginning, and retributive justice describes punishments, penalties, and restitution for situations where someone wrongs someone else and breaks a social contract. In recent years, retributive justice theory has been contrasted with restorative justice: retributive justice focuses on punishment and penalty, while restorative justice focuses on restitution and restoring community relationships.
Read this article which describes restorative justice. What are the benefits of this approach over retributive justice? What are some of the pitfalls or risks?
4.3.2: Income Inequality in the US
The income gap between the highest earning and the lowest earning Americans has increased. Read this article and respond to the following questions: To which era of modern American history is the current level of income inequality frequently compared? What events tend to precipitate the widening of income inequality? What percentage of the wealth in the United States do the top 20% earners own? The bottom 20% earners?
4.3.3: Affirmative Action as Distributive Justice
Watch this lecture until 25:50. In this lecture, Sandel tackles the controversial policy of affirmative action as a form of distributive justice. The question is, does affirmative action create a more just society by helping a disadvantaged group compete on a more level playing field, or is it, as its opponents claim, a form of reverse racism, because it singles out one group for special treatment?
4.3.4: Affirmative Action Opposed: The Case of Cheryl Hopwood
Read the following segments from the US Court of Appeals' decision in the case of Hopwood v. Texas: sections I, II, and III (A.) on pages 1-34. Then, skip ahead and read part VI on pages 67-70. This US Court of Appeals decision involved a group of white students who sued the University of Texas School of Law on the grounds that the school selected several minority students instead of them despite the fact that they had superior academic qualifications. Thus, the plaintiffs argued that they had been discriminated against based on their race. The court decided in their favor, and although the decision was later overturned, the court's statement provides a reasoned argument for the idea that affirmative action constitutes racial discrimination.
Read the syllabus of Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision handed down in Hopwood. What did Grutter argue in the case? Did the Court uphold her argument or reject it? Who must analyze government racial qualifications? Is student body diversity a compelling state interest? What is a narrowly tailored plan?
4.3.5: Affirmative Action and Racial Profiling
Read Professor Chappell's remarks on the ethical difficulties with racial profiling. What is the difference in considering an individual versus a group?
The following article is excerpted from Race, Reputation, and the Supreme Court: Valuing Blackness and Whiteness by Fran Lisa Buntman. What is the impact of blackness and whiteness on reputation and in the legal system?