Crystina Riffel
Jus494
Week 6 reflection
This week’s discussion involved distributive justice in science and technology policy. In one of the readings, it examines viewpoints of four traditions in political philosophy: libertarian, utilitarian, contractarian and communitarian.
Libertarian thought/principles place primary value on the equal protection of property rights (Cozzens 86). Three principles make up the libertarian system: acquisition, transfer and rectification. Cozzens states that government functions should be limited to those that protect rights in holdings and that collecting taxes to pay for any other function is an unjust violation of rights and liberties (86-87). Principles of acquisition and transfer are related to a debate on intellectual property in connection to justice between rich and poor countries. For example, drug companies from outside a country claim ownership rights to medical principles derive from plants they obtained in that country (Cozzens 87). Cozzens states that Nozick concludes that the claim of ownership does not violate Locke’s proviso because nobody would have derived benefit from the plant without the discovery (87). “A purely libertarian science and technology policy would eliminate government funding and avoid policies that create better business conditions for some technologies over others, but embrace policies that protect ownership of innovations so that market exchange can determine what technologies are developed and used, including the current extension of intellectual property rules on a global basis under the World Trade Organization” (Cozzens 87).
In the utilitarian view, a set of social arrangements is fair as long as it increases total well-being and it provides a rationale for government support of research and development (Cozzens 87). Utilitarian principles of justice are not inherently distributive: well-being could increase for everyone, or large gains in well-being for some could outweigh losses by others (Cozzens 88). There is no explicit mechanism or criterion built into most S&T programs to make sure that both advantaged and disadvantaged share in the benefits. Cozzens states that drug companies are most likely to develop products that will earn big profits through sales in affluent countries with good health coverage. Basically, in the absence of deliberate distributional action, science-based advances that in principle could produce broad benefits will in practice only have the impacts the market allows (Cozzens 89). Cozzens also adds that analysts say that the idea of S&T policies create wealth and other policies distribute them.
Contractarian distribution thought lies on the principles of John Rawls. Under contract theory, a fair system of distribution is one that rational individuals would freely agree to after deliberation (Cozzens 89). Other principles of Rawls are also included such as “veil of ignorance” and “justice as fairness”.
Finally, communitarians believe that action is moral when it strengthens community life. To maintain this community, it is essential to respect human rights and to accept social responsibilities (Cozzens 91). Cozzens adds that each society must find its own path and strike its own balance between liberty and order, developing its own moral code based on the concepts of a healthy society that its members evolve and enact (91). Communitarians also caution against the growing polarization of wealth.
