WGBH Station; WGBH Forum Network; Whats a Fair Start? / What Do We Deserve?

We turn. 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 any 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 Raul says would be chosen. Behind the veil of ignorance. First you consider 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. 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 despised minority. With the majority tyrannising over us. And Soros says utilitarianism would be rejected. Utilitarianism makes the mistake was right. 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. The. 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 being 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 agreed 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 a 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 thirty one million dollars a year. Bill Gates having a fortune in the tens of billions. With 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 the least well off. But 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. Roles as argument for the difference principle is that it would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance. Let me hear what you think about. Rawls this claim that these two principles would be chosen behind a veil of ignorance. Is there anyone who disagrees that they would be chosen. Let's start up in the balcony. If that's all right. Go ahead. OK your argument depends upon us believing that we would argue and set 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 Right good question. Put yourself in 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'd said Harvard going to randomly take sixteen hundred people of absolutely no qualification we'd all be saying well there's nothing much not much to work for. And so what principle would you choose. In that situation I would say a marriage based one where one where I don't honestly know what I had better have a system that more rewards me based on my efforts. So you might behind the veil of ignorance would choose a merit based system where people are rewarded according to their efforts. All right fair enough. What would you say. Go ahead. My question is if the merit based argument is based on when everyone is that level of equality. Where. From that position you were awarded to where you got. Or

is it regardless of. Of what. Advantages you may have when you began your education to get where you are here. I think when we do the question we're asking saying you know if you want to look at whatever utilitarianism policy we 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 for all of us despite the fact that some of us may be in the second percentile and some may be in the 90th percentile and the end of the day it lifts that lowest that lowest base level a community that rewards effort as opposed to innate differences. I don't understand how how you're. Rewarding someone. AFR too clearly has had. Not you but me be myself. Advantages throughout to get worry I am here I mean I can't say that that somebody else had maybe it worked as hard as I did I. Would have had the same opportunity to come to a school like this. Now let's let's look at that point what's your name. Kate Kate you suspect.

That the ability to get into. The. Top schools. May largely depend. On coming from an affluent family having a favorable back 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 hundred forty six 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 the figure is only 3 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 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 a second argument. And that is a straightforwardly moral argument. And it goes like

this. It says. The distribution of income and wealth and opportunities should not be based. On factors. For which people can claim no credit. It shouldn't be based on factors that are arbitrary from a moral point of view. Rolls illustrates this by considering. Several rival theories of justice. He begins. With a theory of justice. The most everyone these days would reject. A feudal aristocracy. What's wrong with the allocation of life prospects in a feudal aristocracy. Rawls says well the thing that's obviously wrong about it is that people's life prospects are determined by the accident of birth.

Are you born into a noble family or are two of the family of peasants and serfs. And that's it. You can't rise. It's not your doing where you wind up or what opportunities you have. But that's arbitrary from a moral point of view. And so that objection to a feudal aristocracy. Leads. And historically has led people to say careers should be open to talents there should be formal equality of opportunity regardless of the accident of birth. Every person should be free to strive to work. To apply for any job in the society. And then if you open up jobs. And you allow people to apply and to work as hard as they can then the results are just. So it's more or less the libertarian system that we've discussed in earlier weeks. What Israel's

think about this he says it's an improvement. It's an improvement because it doesn't take as fixed. The accident of birth. But even with formal equality of opportunity the libertarian conception doesn't extend it that doesn't extend its insight far enough. Because if you let everybody run the race. Everybody can enter the race but some people start at different starting points that race isn't going to be fair. Intuitively he says the most obvious injustice of this system is that it permits distributive shares to be improperly influenced by factors arbitrary from a moral point of view such as whether you've got a good education or not. Whether you grew up in a family that supported you and developed in you a work ethic and gave you the opportunities. So that suggests moving to a system of fair equality of opportunity and that's

really the system that Mike was advocating earlier on. What we might call a merit based system a meritocratic system in a fair meritocracy. This is ID sets up institutions. To bring everyone to the same starting point before the race begins. Equal educational opportunities. Head Start programs for example. Support for schools in impoverished neighborhoods. So that everyone regardless of their family background. Has a genuinely fair opportunity. Everyone starts from the same starting line. Well what Israel's think about the meritocratic system. Even that he says doesn't go far enough in remedying or addressing. The moral arbitrariness.

Of the natural lottery. Because if you bring everyone to the same starting point. And begin the race. Who's going to win the race. Who would win. To use the runners example. The fastest runners who would win. But but is it Vera doing. That they happen to be blessed with the athletic prowess to run fast. So Rolle says even the principle of meritocracy. Where you bring everyone to the same starting point. May eliminate the influence of social contingencies and upbringing but it still permits the distribution of wealth and income to be determined by the natural distribution of abilities and talents. And so he thinks that the principle of

eliminating morally arbitrary influences in the distribution of income and wealth requires going beyond. What Mike favors the meritocratic system. Now how do you go beyond. To bring everyone to the same starting point and you're still bothered by the fact that some are fast runners and some are not fast runners. What can you do. Well some critics. Of a more egalitarian conception. Say the only thing you can do is handicap the fast runners. Make them wear led shoes. But who wants to do that. That would defeat the whole point of running the race. But Wall says. You don't have to have a kind of leveling equality. If you want to go beyond America Craddick conception you permit you even encourage those who may be gifted.

To exercise their talents. But what you do is you change the terms on which people are entitled to the fruits of the exercise of those talents. And that really is what the difference principle is. You establish a principle that says people may benefit from their good fortune. From their luck in the genetic lottery. But only on terms that work to the advantage of the least well off and so for example. Michael Jordan can make thirty one million dollars but. Only under a system that taxes away a chunk of that to help those who lack the basketball skills that he's blessed with. Likewise Bill Gates. He can make his billions. But he can't think that he's somehow morally deserves those billions. Those who've been favored by nature. May gain from their good fortune but

only on terms that improve the situation of those who have lost out. That's the difference principle and it's an argument from moral arbitrariness. WALLACE claims that if you're bothered by basing distributive shares on factors arbitrary from a moral point of view you don't just reject a feudal aristocracy for a free market. You don't even. Rest content with a meritocratic system. That brings everyone to the same starting point. You set up a system where everyone including those at the bottom benefit from the exercise of the talents held by those who happen to be lucky. What do you think. Is that persuasive. Who's who finds that argument unpersuasive the argument for moral arbitrariness. Yes. I think the in the egalitarian. Proposition the more talented people. I think it's very optimistic to think that

they. Would. Would still work really hard even if they knew that part of what they made would be given away. So I think that the only way for the more talented people to exercise their talents to the best of their ability is in the meritocracy. And in a meritocracy what's her name. Kate Kate does it bother you and why does it bother you. That in America credit system even with fair equality of opportunity. People get ahead people get rewards that they don't deserve simply because they happen to be naturally gifted. What about that. I think that it is arbitrary. And obvious obviously is arbitrary but I think that they're correcting for it would be detrimental. And unless we would reduce incentives has had well used incentives. Mike what do you say.

They were all sitting in this room and we have undeserved and undeserved glory of some sort that you should not be satisfied with the process of your life because you have not created any of this and I think from a standpoint of not just this room us being upset but from a societal standpoint we should have some kind of a gut reaction to that feeling that you know the guy who runs the race he doesn't he actually harms us as opposed to maybe makes me run that last 10 yards faster. And that makes the guy behind me run 10 yards faster and the guy behind him 10 yards faster. All right so Mike let me ask you you talked about effort before effort. You think when people work hard to get ahead and succeed that they deserve. The rewards that go with the effort. Isn't that the idea behind your defense I mean of course bring Michael Jordan here I'm sure you can get him and have him come and defend himself about why he makes 31 million dollars I think what you're going to realize is his life was a very very tough one to get to the top and that we are basically being the majority oppressing meant the minority in a different light. It's hard to pick on him. There I say effort. You know if. You've got

us this way you have got to hear that it's an. Effort. You know Rawls answer to that is. Even the effort. That some people expand. Conscientious striving the work ethic. Even effort depends a lot on fortunate family circumstances. Through which you can claim no credit. Now that's all going to last. Let's do the test. Let's do a test here. Never mind. The. Economic class those differences are very significant put those aside. Psychologists say that birth order makes a lot of difference in work ethic striving effort. How many here raise your hand. Those of you here who are first in birth order. I. I am too by the way.

Mike I notice you raise your hand. If the case. For the meritocratic conception is that effort should be rewarded. Doesn't Rawls have a point that even effort striving. Work ethic is largely shaped. Even by birth order. Is it your doing Mike. Is it your doing that you were first in birth order. Then why Royal says. Of course not. So why should income and wealth and opportunities in life. Be based on factors. Arbitrary from a moral point of view. That's a challenge that he puts. To market societies. But also.

To those of us at places like this. A question to think about for next time. A justice of the United States Supreme Court. What do they make. It's it's just under $200000. But there is another judge who makes a lot more than Sandra Day O'Connor. You know who it is. Judge Judy how did you know that. Judge Judy you know how much she makes. Twenty five million dollars. Now is that just. Is it fair. We ended last time. With that remarkable poll you remember. The poll about birth order.

What percentage of people. In this room. Raise their hands. Was it. To say that they were the first born. 75 80 percent. And what was the significance of that if you're thinking about the series of distributive justice. Remember. We were discussing. Three different theories of distributive justice. Three different ways of answering the question. How should income and wealth and opportunities and the good things in life be distributed. And so far we've looked at the libertarian answer. That says the just system of distribution is a system of free exchange of free market economy against a background.

Of formal equality which simply means the jobs and careers are open to anyone. Raul says this represents an improvement over areas to Craddick and caste systems. Because everyone can compete for every job careers open to talents. And beyond that the just distribution is the one that results from free exchange. Voluntary transactions. No more no less. Then rolls argues. If all you have. Is formal equality jobs open to everyone. The result is not going to be fair. It will be biased in favor of those who happen to be born. To affluent families. Who happen to have the benefit of good educational opportunities. And that accident of birth. Is not a just basis

for distributing life chances. And so. Many people. Would notice this. Unfairness. Ross argues. I lead to embrace. A system of fair equality of opportunity. That leads to the meritocratic system. Fair equality of opportunity. But Wall says even if you bring everyone to the same starting point in the race. What's going to happen who's going to win. The fastest runners. So once you're troubled by basing distributive shares on morally arbitrary contingencies you should. If you reason it through be carried all the way to what Rose calls the Democratic conception a more

egalitarian conception of distributive justice. That he defines by the difference principle. Now he doesn't say that the only way to remedy. Or to compensate for differences in natural talents and abilities. Is to have a kind of leveling equality a guaranteed equality of outcome. But he does say. There's another way to deal with these contingencies. People may gain may benefit from their good fortune but only on terms that work to the advantage of the least well-off. And so we can test how this theory actually works by thinking about some pay differentials that arise. In our society. What does the average school teacher make. In the United States do you suppose. Roughly.

It's a little more Forty forty two thousand. What about David Letterman. How much do you think David Letterman makes. More than a schoolteacher. Thirty one million dollars. David Letterman. Is that fair. That David Letterman makes that much more than a schoolteacher. Well Ross's answer would be It depends whether. The basic structure of society is designed in such a way. That Letterman's Thirty one million dollars has subject to taxation so that some of those earnings are taken. To work for the advantage of the least well-off. One other example of a pay differential. A justice of the United States Supreme Court. What do they make. It's it's just under $200000. Here is.

Sandra Day O'Connor for example. There she is. But there is another judge who makes a lot more than Sandra Day O'Connor. You know who it is. Judge Judy how did you know that. You watched. You know but you're her you're right. Judge Judy you know how much she makes. There she is. Twenty five. Twenty five million dollars. Now is that just. Is it fair. Well. The answer is It depends whether. This is against a background system in line with the difference principle. Where those who come out on top in terms of income and wealth are taxed. In a way that benefits the least well-off members of society.

Now we're going to come back. To these wage differentials pay differentials. Between a real judge and a TV judge. The one Marcus watches all the time. What I want to do now is return to these theories. And to examine. The objections. To. Roles as. A. More egalitarian theory. The different principle. There are at least three objections. To roles as difference principle. One of them came up last time in the discussion and a number of you raised this worry. What about incentives. Isn't there the risk if taxes reach 70 80 90 percent marginal rate. That Michael Jordan won't play basketball. That data David

Letterman. Won't do late night comedy. Or that CEOs. Will go into some other. Line of work. Now who among those who are defenders of brawls. Who has an answer to this objection about the need for incentives. Yes. I don't have stand up. Rolls his idea is that. There should only be so much difference that it helps the least well off the most. So if there is too much equality then the least well off might not be able to watch late 90 or might not have a job because their CEO doesn't want to work. So you need to find the correct balance where taxation still leaves enough incentive for the least well off to benefit from the talents good.

And what's your name. Tim Tim. Alright so Tim is saying in effect that rolls takes account of incentives. And could allow for pay differentials and. For some adjustment in the tax rate to take account of incentives. But Tim points out. The standpoint from which. The question of incentives needs to be considered. Is not the effect on the total size of the economic pie. But instead from the standpoint of the effect of incentives or disincentives. On the well-being of those at the bottom. Right. Good thank you I think that is what Rawls would say. In fact if you look in section. 17 where he describes. The different principle. He allows for.

Incentives. The naturally advantaged are not to gain merely because they are more gifted. But only to cover the costs of training and education and for using their endowments in ways that help the less fortunate as well. So you can have incentives you can adjust the tax rate. If taking too much from David Letterman. Or from Michael Jordan or from Bill Gates. Winds up actually hurting those at the bottom. That's the test. So incentives. That's not a decisive objection against this difference principle. But there are two weight here more difficult objections. One of them. Comes. From defenders of America Craddock conception. The argument that says what

about effort. What about people working hard having a right to what they earn because they deserved it they've worked hard for it. That's the objection. From effort and moral desert. Then there's is. Another objection. That comes from. Libertarians. And this objection. Has to do with reasserting the idea. Of self ownership. Doesn't the difference principle. By treating our natural talents and endowments common assets. Doesn't that violate. The idea that we own ourselves. Now let me deal first. With the objection that comes from the libertarian direction. Milton

Friedman writes. In his book free to choose. Life is not fair and it's tempting to believe that government can rectify what nature has spawned. But his answer is. The only way to try to rectify that is to have a leveling equality of outcome. Everyone finishing the race at the same point. And now would be a disaster. This is an easy argument to answer and Rawls addresses it. In one of the most. Powerful passages I think of the Theory of Justice. It's in. Section 17. The natural distribution. And here he is talking about the natural distribution of talents and endowment is neither just nor unjust. Nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply

natural fact. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts. That's his answer. To. Libertarian laissez faire economists like Milton Friedman who say life is unfair but get over it. Get over it and let's see if we can at least maximize the benefits that flow from it. But the more powerful libertarian objection to Rawls is not libertarian from the libertarian economists like Milton Friedman. It's from the argument about self-ownership. Developed as we saw in no sich. And from that point of view yes it might be a good thing. To create Head Start programs and public schools. So that everyone can go to a decent school and start the race at the same starting line. That might be good. But if you tax people to it to create public schools. If you

tax people. Against their will. You coerce them. It's a form of theft. If you take some of Letterman's 31 million. Tax it away to support public schools against his will. The state is really doing no better than stealing from him. It's coercion. And the reason is. We have to think of ourselves as owning our talents and endowments. Because otherwise we're back to just using people and coercing people. That's the libertarian reply. What's Rawls answer to that objection. He doesn't address the idea of self ownership directly but the effect the moral weight of his argument for the difference principle is.

Maybe we don't own ourselves in that thoroughgoing sense after all. Now he says this doesn't mean that the state. Is an owner in me in the sense that it can simply commandeer my life. Because remember the first principle we would agree to behind the veil of ignorance. Is the principle of equal basic liberties. Freedom of Speech believe is liberty freedom of conscience. And the like. So the only respect. In which the idea of self ownership must give way. Comes when we're thinking about whether. I own myself in the sense that I have a privileged claim. On the benefits that come from the exercise of my talents in a market economy. And Raul says on reflection

we don't. We can defend rights. We can respect the individual. We can uphold human dignity. Without embracing. The idea of self-possession. That in effect is his reply. To the libertarian I want to turn now. To his reply to the defender of the meritocratic conception. Who invokes effort as the basis of moral desert. People who work hard to develop their talents. Deserve the benefits that come from the exercise of their talents. Well we've already seen the beginning of Rawls answer to that question. And it goes back to that poll we took about birth order. His

first answer is. Even. The work ethic even the willingness to strive conscientiously depends on all sorts of family circumstances and social and cultural contingencies for which we can claim no credit. You can't claim credit for the fact that you most of you most of us happen to be first in birth order and that for some. Complex psychological and social reasons that seems to be associated with striving with achieving with effort. That's one answer. There's a second answer. Those of you who invoke effort. You don't really believe. That moral desert attaches to effort. Take two construction workers. One is strong and can raise four walls in an hour without even breaking a sweat.

And another construction worker is small and scrawny. And has to spend three days. To do the same amount of work. No defender of meritocracy is going to look at the effort and that we can scrawny construction worker and say therefore he deserves to make more. So it isn't really effort. This is the second reply to the medical Craddick claim. It isn't really an effort. That the defender of meritocracy believes is the moral basis. Of distributive shares. It's contribution. How much do you contribute. But contribution takes us straight back to our natural talents and abilities not just effort. And it's not our doing how we came into the possession of those talents in the first place. All right suppose you accepted these arguments. That effort isn't everything. That

contribution matters from the standpoint of the meritocratic conception. That effort even isn't. Our own doing. Does that mean. The objection continues. Does that mean that according to Rawls moral desert has nothing to do with distributive justice. Well yes. Distributive justice is not about moral desert. Now here Rawls introduces an important and a tricky distinction. It's between moral desert on the one hand. And entitlements to legitimate expectations on the other. What is the difference between moral deserts. And entitlements. Consider two different games. A game of chance in a game of skill.

Take a game of pure chance. Say I play the Massachusetts State Lottery. And my number comes up. I'm entitle to my winnings. But even though I'm entitled to my winnings there's no sense in which. Because it's just a game of luck. No sense in which I morally deserve to win in the first place. That's an entire limit. Now contrast the lottery with a different kind of game. A game of skill. Now. Imagine the Boston Red Sox. Winning the World Series. When they win. They're entitled to the trophy. But it can be always asked. Of a game of skill. Did they deserve to win. It's always possible in

principle to distinguish. What someone's entitle to under the rules. And whether they deserve to win in the first place. That's an antecedent standard moral desert. Now Rose says distributive justice is not a matter of moral desert. Though it is a matter of entitlements to legitimate expectations. Here's where he explains it. A Just scheme answers. To what men are entitled to. It satisfies their legitimate expectations is founded upon social institutions. But what they are entitled to is not proportional to nor dependent on their intrinsic worth. The principles of justice that regulate the basic structure do not mention moral desert. And there is no

tendency for distributive shares to correspond to it. Why does Rawls make this distinction. What morally is at stake. One thing morally at stake is the whole question of effort that we've already discussed. But there's a second contingency. A second source of moral arbitrariness that goes beyond the question of whether it's to my credit that I have the talents that enable me to get ahead. And that has to do with the contingency. That I live in a society that happens to prize my talents. The fact. That David Letterman. Lives in a society that puts a great premium puts a great value. On a certain type of smirky joke. That's not his doing. He's lucky that he happens to live in such a society.

But this is the second contingency. This isn't something that we can claim credit for. Even if I had sole unproblematic claim to my talents and to my effort it would still be the case that the benefits I get from exercising those talents depend on factors. That are arbitrary from a moral point of view. What my talents will reap in a market economy what does that depend on. What other people happen to want or like in this society. It depends on the law of supply and demand. That's not my doing. Certainly not the basis for moral desert. What counts as contributing. Depends on the qualities that this or that society happens to prize. Most of us are fortunate to possess. In large measure for whatever reason the qualities that our society. Happens to

prize. The qualities the need that enable us to provide what society wants. In a capitalist society it helps to have entrepreneurial drive. In a bureaucratic society it helps to get on easily and smoothly with superiors. In a mass democratic society. It helps to look good on television. And to speak in short superficial soundbites. In a litigious society it helps to go to law school. And to have the talents to do well on LSA tees. But none of this is our doing. Suppose that we with our talents inhabited not our society technologically advanced highly litigious. But a hunting society or a warrior society what would become of our talents then. They wouldn't get us very far. No doubt some of us would develop others. But would we be less worthy. Would be be less virtuous.

Would be would we be less meritorious if we lived in that kind of society rather than in ours. Wells's answer is No. We might make less money and properly so. But while we would be entitled to less. We would be no less worthy. No less deserving than we are now. And here's the point. The same could be said of those in our society who happen to hold less prestigious positions who happen to have fewer of the talents that our society happens to reward. So here's the moral import of the distinction between moral desert and entitlements to legitimate expectations. We are entitled to the benefits that the rules of the game promise for the exercise of our talents. But it's a mistake and a conceit to suppose that we deserve it in the first

place. A society that values the qualities we happen to have. In abundance. Now we've been talking here about income and wealth. But about opportunities and honors. What about the distribution. Of access. Of seats in elite colleges and universities. It's true. All of you. Most of you first born. Work hard. Strive to. Develop your talents. To get here. But Rose asks in effect. What is the moral status of your claim. To the benefits that attach. To the opportunities you have. Our seats. In colleges and universities. Are.

A matter of kind of reward and honor for those who deserve them because they work so hard. Or are those seats those opportunities and honors. Entitle ments to legitimate expectations. That depend for their justification. On those of us who enjoy them. Doing so in a way that works to the benefit. Of those at the bottom of society. That's the question that rolls as difference principle poses. It's a question that can be asked. Of the earnings of Michael Jordan and David Letterman and Judge Judy. But it's also a question that can be asked. Of opportunities. To go to. The top colleges and universities and that's a

debate. That comes out. When we turn to the question of affirmative action next time. Thank. You. Don't miss the chance to interact on line with other viewers to. Join the conversation much like you can learn a lot more. Is it just the right thing. Funding for this program is provided by. Additional funding

provided by.