-
00:00
I'd like to welcome our special guest, Emeritus Professor Paul Redmond. After many years in the
00:02
Faculty of Law at UNSW where he served as Dean he is now an Emeritus Professor of both UTS and UNSW
00:12
his principal research interests are in corporate and securities law corporate governance and
00:17
corporate responsibility his current focus is on reforms that might make a reality of soft
00:23
law frameworks that assert the responsibility of business to protect human rights and global soft
00:30
law standards of responsible conduct he also has a particular interest in legal education
00:37
and has been involved in several national and international reviews of programs and structures
00:43
he was the founding faculty co-director of the Brennan program from 2011 until mid 2020 the
00:51
program seeks to inspire law students to develop their innate sense of justice and to make the
00:56
world a better place for the exercise of their rich talents as students and in the years to come
01:03
he thinks that understanding the journey of justice requires a lifetime's reflection and hopes
01:08
that today's webinar helps you on that journey I'd now like to introduce you to Paul Redmond.
01:16
I'm just going to share the slides Paul thank you
01:32
if i can
01:43
okay how's that that that's terrific thank you
01:48
thank you Mac can and and am i coming through clearly yeah very good excellent excellent look
01:55
and uh thank you for that lovely welcome uh Mac and for the invitation to talk to students today,
02:04
i'm grateful to the students for turning up and for this discussion Mac can we go on to the
02:08
actually go on no to the next slide if you don't mind the i want to talk about the structure of
02:13
today what the purpose is uh the the idea of justice just what we mean by justice
02:22
understanding the concept of justice is really central to being a law student it's central to
02:28
the Brennan Program there are these two limbs to the program and for those who are new to
02:32
the program i particularly welcome you into the program it's really one of the one of the great
02:38
great treats are actually coming to uts law school that you get to be part of this program and the
02:43
richness that it offers if we were if you were in medical school one of the things that would that
02:49
the background noise would always be about health whether for individual health or public health
02:54
in a law school the background concern is always about justice laws connection to justice whether
03:01
law is achieving justice but what do we mean by justice justice is a concept that isn't something
03:07
you get out of a textbook there are many different understandings of justice many different ideas of
03:12
justice and in a sense that thinking about justice reflecting on it is a is a lifetime's work it's a
03:20
lifetime's idea particularly for lawyers for who are have responsibility as custodians
03:25
for the nation of justice and i just wanted today to introduce some of those conceptions
03:31
of justice and start your thinking and and start you moving down the path of that you know that
03:38
that long reflection a path that of course you would have begun already but it helps
03:42
just to think about what do we mean we we try to act justly as an individual and as a as a
03:48
society and the structure for doing that i thought would be to start with this lovely hypothetical
03:53
from the great developmental economist amateur sen on the idea of justice in
03:58
in his book with that title i should say i want to start with that hypothetical in
04:02
just a moment but then the structure would be okay i'd like just to invite you to nominate
04:09
we don't really have time to just discuss them today but some issues for of justice
04:13
particularly going to you know justice at a wider societal level that you think are really important
04:20
let's just list some that you know you that that stay with you that are important to you
04:26
the and then i want to go and go through these different notions of justice rather quickly
04:30
um so all i can do is introduce them but to start you on the way and give you some resources that
04:37
might be useful in in your own journey to one to reflect upon justice and then we might come back
04:42
to the flute hypothetical and say okay how do we apply those notions how do we resolve the question
04:47
that i'm going to give you that's on the screen in front of you who would you as the as the as the
04:55
judicial figure the decision maker whom would you give this flute to between these three claimants
05:01
and we might just discuss and discuss that so that's the structure so let's start with the
05:07
with the idea of justice the hypothetical to get us moving now i want you to imagine and i should
05:13
i should say this hypothetical as i say comes entirely from sin's book the idea of justice
05:19
now there's a flute that three people claim uh these people are geographically remote
05:26
from one another so only one of them can get the flute and the question is who would
05:30
you give it to and why well what basis what theory of justice what idea of justice would
05:36
underground your decision now anna says i should have the flute because of the three i'm the
05:42
only one who will ever be able to play it i've learned to play the flute i know how to play it
05:48
the others will never be able to use it for the purpose which it was created
05:53
bobby's claim is fundamentally very different bobby has had a life of great poverty
05:58
uh up till now the other two have a comfortable existence anna and claire bobby has never had
06:05
a toy before the flute has come into his hands innocently without any wrong on his part and he's
06:11
formed a deeper emotional attachment to it it's become for him a treasure a a an emotional support
06:20
claire's claim is very different she says i'm entitled to that flute because i made it with
06:26
my own hands and just as i finished it someone came in and took it away from me without any
06:32
authority it was stolen if you like uh without any and it's and it's found and it's and it's
06:39
and it's in the hands now the decision maker i should have it because i made it okay who should
06:46
get it that's our question when we when we go through these hypotheticals when we go through
06:51
that and throw the different conceptions of justice think about which one might apply
06:56
if at all to those those three claims mack if you could go on to the next slide
07:06
now uh there's a lot of you know what I wonder if we can just spend a few minutes
07:11
talking about some justice issues that you see is pressing in Australia in contemporary Australia
07:17
now Mac or Crystal if we'll keep a note and I'll of course I'll be listening intently
07:24
we just want to list some issues things that you think are important justice issues for us
07:30
in Australian society at the moment the floor is over to you
07:40
yeah feel free to put your microphone on everyone or if you'd like to
07:45
put something in the chat as well Molly's just put up treatment of refugees and asylum seekers
07:53
thanks Molly
07:55
inquiring to minister the conduct
07:59
equal access to justice and equal positive treatment from Raphaela open justice from Max
08:06
and i miss i'm sorry i missed that oral contribution sorry
08:10
i just said inquiring to ministerial conduct like christian border exactly yes so yes the
08:15
responsibility of ministry uh politicians and in particular ministers conducting standards
08:24
disability societal injustices towards disability groups thanks Raphael
08:34
women's rights and equality from ek
08:39
another one is high incarceration rates amongst the indigenous community in Australia despite a
08:44
smaller being a smaller segment of the population the percentage for incarceration is much higher
08:49
that's an important one thank you thank you
08:58
any others that people want to nominate at the moment
09:04
well
09:06
animal welfare lawyers from Davina thank you yes
09:11
these are important issues and I think it's very helpful to
09:16
to get some sense of the issues on your mind so that we can you know say we i mean the program i'm
09:21
no longer the program um you can actually respond to those so that's been very helpful keep putting
09:28
me on the chat the chat site but maybe mac we could go on to the next slide and i'll start my
09:36
um i'll start my presentation in relation to different theories of justice thank you um look
09:45
i want to start with the first one utilitarianism you know sometimes called consequentialism looking
09:50
to the consequences of action of a decision or of a uh or or of a resource allocation that
09:57
goes to the greatest happiness or the greatest number before i do so could i just i point on
10:02
the screen there you'll see a couple of books i want to refer in particular to michael sandal
10:07
michael sanders book sandals book justice what's the right thing to do it's now 11 12 years old
10:15
is a terrific book a terrific introduction to the idea of justice different theories of justice and
10:21
i've drawn upon that today in this presentation a martyr sends i should also say sandal teaches
10:28
at harvard university he has a very famous course which is available on online on for students there
10:35
is lectures on the notion of justice if you've got time to drip into that you'll find it very very
10:42
stimulating and very helpful he subsequently written a couple of other books recently on
10:47
first most recently i think on meritocracy and the claims of meritocracy is a foundation for justice
10:53
as a spurious notion of superior spurious proxy for just for justice his concern is really around
11:00
whether equal opportunity is sufficient and there's also before that a very significant book
11:05
about the limits to markets as as determinants as indicators of um of um of just outcomes of
11:13
attribute of of reflecting human preferences amateur sends book the idea of justice i've
11:19
referred to already it's a bit more complex but it's a really a very important book the
11:25
other the other writer i draw attention to will be come up in a later slide american philosopher
11:31
john rawls his book the the a theory of justice in 1971 has made a very important contribution
11:38
and he's revised it subsequently rules as a very important thinker so these are three
11:44
writers that i'd particularly commend to you sandal is a terrific accessible easy
11:51
writer and i think you know he's both in his books but also in his lectures is a very good
11:56
starting point now let's go to utilitarianism many of you will know this already perhaps from
12:02
previous studies but i'm not going to assume that there's been a great depth of prior knowledge
12:08
utilitarianism says look a just outcome for it for a decision maker whether it's a parliament
12:16
a lawmaker um is is that a policy frame fallacy set up is is that we look to consequences you
12:25
know the morality of action the justice of a of a resource distribution depends on its con
12:30
it's our consequences what outcome will produce the greatest aggregate happiness the greatest
12:38
aggregate benefit or utility within the community that's affected by that decision and that's and
12:44
that goes back to jeremy bentham it goes back to mill it's a very old notion very important one
12:51
um look to the consequence of the decision and see whether it makes
12:56
more people happy whether it it it in aggregate makes the satisfies community preferences
13:03
maximally the difficulty i pose i was picking up a couple of difficulties of that people have got
13:09
differing preferences for happiness and and you know is there a common currency a common coinage
13:15
of value that enables um calculation we might think of that by by reference to the claims for
13:24
the in a moment in relation to the flute when we get back to come back to that hypothetical
13:29
how do you measure happiness how do you measure utility on that on that aggregate notion and also
13:34
it excludes other things from the calculus the mathematics the the the arithmetic if you like of
13:41
calculating aggregate value what it leaves out are intangibles which are which many would argue and
13:48
i would certainly be amongst them that tangible such as a sense of social solidarity a sense of
13:53
our responsibility for each other a conception concept will come back to and also leaves out it
14:01
it also raises the question which is fundamental to utilitarianism what about individual rights
14:08
i put there in the little line there probably don't make doesn't make a lot of sense may the
14:13
majority resume coliseum entertainments now by that i mean you recall the raymond coliseum you
14:19
there was a bit of the the entertainment bread and circuses was are all around for example sending
14:25
minorities typically christians to be eaten by lions or gladiatorial contests but in a sense a
14:31
better example is the notion of universal human rights are there some rights that ought to be
14:37
protected individual rights civil and political rights even economic social and cultural rights
14:43
that ought to stand against the majority that the majority isn't sovereign in relation to
14:48
everything so that's there's some problems with utilitarianism but it's one it's it's a
14:55
notion that has a long and proud lineage mac if i could trouble you to move to the next one please
15:03
now second conception is justice the just outcome is that which promotes freedom
15:11
and of course it's it's a notion that is fundamental to a number of constitutions
15:16
perhaps most commonly most commonly expressed perhaps in the united states constitution
15:22
that freedom of liberty of action of thought of action of pursuit of the pursuit of happiness
15:31
is is a fundamental principle that ought to determine whether the justice of particular
15:36
policy settings or decisions one form of that and perhaps the most popular one is libertarianism
15:43
that markets alone allow the satisfaction of wants the mark that in through markets we express
15:51
the depth of our affair of our feeling towards a particular
15:56
course of action a particular product a particular commodity
16:00
and markets play an a a a role in allocating weighing up the aggregate satisfaction
16:09
satisfy human wants um that just leave it to the market uh and in a sense that will work out the
16:18
aggregate preference adam smith famously called it the light on the hill the market the the invisible
16:24
hand of a market will guide us towards the that uh the the best satisfaction of our community
16:32
individual wants within a particular community now of course this negates a role for government
16:38
um ronald reagan famously said government isn't the solution government is the problem
16:44
and that that sentiment of course has had in the sentencing particularly in the last
16:48
three decades under economic globalization where governments have stepped back from
16:54
uh the regulation of economic activity in particular as ma as boundaries between states
17:02
disappeared under an under economy which became increasingly global what's been very
17:07
interesting of course in the last year and a half has been under the influence of covert the crisis
17:14
government coming back into action and and in fact playing a very significant role
17:20
and not leaving to markets alone but relying upon markets for example for the production and
17:25
generation of vaccines so there's a more complex subtle play between government and business
17:32
government and mark regulation and markets but that that thinking has changed a little somewhat
17:38
i think thinking within communities and within governments themselves
17:41
and of course it's also always a very excessively narrow view the famous speech that franklin delano
17:48
roosevelt before freedom speech in 1941 he spoke about the four fundamental freedoms the freedom
17:55
of speech freedom of belief but also the freedom from want and the freedom from fear
18:01
and those last two figure freedoms are collective freedoms freedoms that collect depend upon a role
18:08
for social solidarity but also for government regulation now i also want to pick up but not
18:15
at the great expense of your time yeah emmanuel kant's categorical imperative can woods kant is
18:21
a great we would say german philosopher probably was prussian philosopher and koenigsberg and the
18:27
in the east in the east coast of of prussia then was us now i think within one of the baltic states
18:33
um he spoke about you know really true freedom is a different kind of freedom it's a freedom
18:39
that comes from within and is given by our our decision to act not from a kind of external
18:47
inclination you know from thirst or from hunger or other you know bodily appetites but from our own
18:53
exercise of internal freedom it's conditioned upon a concern for the motive of our action
18:59
not the consequence but the moral worth of our action motive gives confers a moral worth
19:06
you do something because it is right therefore the woman or the man for whom honesty is the
19:12
best policy is not this is not his phrase he's not an honest man the motive is false
19:18
and he says he looks towards what might be a universal law that would determine freedom
19:24
the the real exercise of freedom and he says act on the maxim that act on the rule that you
19:31
would accept as a universal rule applicable to everyone and fundamentally he says under
19:36
that maxim you would treat people as ends in themselves not as means to another purpose another
19:43
another objective but ends with an absolute value not a relative value and of course an absolute
19:51
value and a dignity anyway and of course the notion of universal human this is the foundation
19:56
of universal human rights where that everybody has a dignity which is equal um and absolute
20:02
and it does not depend upon the exercise does it overrides state action or exercise of majority
20:10
only when we act under these three notions of of motive universal law treating people as ends
20:17
to react freely because that's i'm not a candian scholar and this is not the time ready to pursue
20:22
that more fully but it's a it's a it's an another concept of freedom and it's one that grounded
20:29
another theory of justice which mack if you would be kind enough we'll move on to on the next slide
20:36
now justice is fairness and equality i spoke about john rawls the great american philosopher
20:42
he was concerned about you know what what would be what would be a just society look like if we came
20:50
together to frame a just society but separated from our particular status our particular
20:58
place within the existing society what would that look like and he spoke about a social contract for
21:05
a just society drawn up behind a veil of ignorance where we we wouldn't know how we would be placed
21:11
under that society so we would have to kind of take a chance and we would want therefore
21:17
assuming a measure of equality and he says such a social contract such an idea of justice would
21:23
be one that provides equal and basic liberties for everybody of speech and belief and those
21:30
liberties would prevail over the the tyranny of the majority but it would permit inequality but
21:38
only such a social and economic inequalities that would work to the advantage of the least
21:43
well-off member of society for the poorest so you would ask yourself is paying somebody a doctor a
21:51
lawyer or you know whatever it is a politician a higher amount is that going to actually
21:59
improve the position of the poor rather than under a regime of strict equality and you know he would
22:06
say yes doctors need to be need to be and lawyers perhaps need to be paid more to encourage them to
22:11
go through legal studies and medical studies the the concern is to avoid moral arbitrariness the
22:17
you know the advantages of opportunity and natural endowment of of having being born
22:22
in a particular country you know you know in a family or in a situation with with personal gifts
22:28
um that you can that you can pursue with a generation with social capital it comes from
22:34
of a variety of kinds these these gifts including the personal ones pretty should
22:40
it be exercised only for the common good now the objections to that are obvious you know why why
22:45
would anyone get out of bed in a certain situation what's the what's the incentive
22:50
to act you can just go back one second um what's the incentive to exercise exercise effort to act
22:57
for you know for a um for a for a drug company to find a vaccine so quickly but of course it's got
23:02
a consensual foundation albeit one that's presumed mac if you could move on please
23:10
that's the justices fairness and equality now justice is that the promotion of virtue this is
23:16
a a complicated one um it's complicated because it moves we can state it simply it's it's roots like
23:26
an aristotle a just society is one that promotes the virtue of its citizens that develops their
23:32
human capacities and potential and really laws should be such a rule of law of life
23:38
that will make citizens good and just that's the purpose of a law that's the purpose of a policy
23:43
it's about promoting human virtue and and the goodness and the justice of action of
23:48
india the individuals and if you look at the you can test the justice of an action
23:54
a decision a policy decision by its purpose what's its purpose what's its goal what's its end or he
24:02
would pay its tear telos what's the what's the is is it for the promotion of virtue or of a
24:09
of a culture of justice a culture of goodness or at the individual level the virtue of its end of
24:15
of individual citizens in their own human capacities and they could and their capacities for
24:20
flourishing now it's interesting is to think about that about the flute hypothetical what can you see
24:29
uh how might that apply to the problem that we've got now canton and rawls say this this this virtue
24:38
norm it really doesn't take us very far a just society surely will permit each of us to choose
24:44
our own conception of how we want to live what is the good life we've all got different conceptions
24:49
of how life should be lived how we want to live and how we think our fellow citizens should live
24:55
but of course in a sense that raises another conception of justice which i'd call a fifth one
25:02
where which mills into a kind of a communitarianism it says is that you individualism
25:10
that canton rules is it taking you back into a kind of a utilitarianism does it re does it really
25:18
reflect the reality of our lives that there are two different conceptions of our lives we are
25:24
we are individuals acting atomistically in a society in which we don't um we we we pursue
25:32
our own conception we we're individuals bouncing around we pursue our own our own conception of
25:38
the good life and we do it by us by a series of contracts arrangements etc another view which is
25:44
more the sociologist emil durkheim over a century ago spoke about lives we we don't live like that
25:52
our lives are all embedded in a society they're embedded in a culture they're embedded in in in
25:58
the communities in which we live from which we are descended where socially embedded is the reality
26:05
of our lives we inherit a history and an identity we inherit moral obligations of solidarity and of
26:11
loyalty and responsibility to each other um from the family beyond that into a network of
26:17
friendship revolution of relationships and within the within within a country now you're probably
26:23
too young to know johnny farnham and you know his famous song sadie the cleaning lady but he
26:29
um which launched him launched to korea but he he had another song his name i don't remember but um
26:36
he says we're all someone's daughter we're all someone's son in a sense we're shaped
26:40
by families we're shaped by tribe we're shaped by an identity we've inherited that may be the
26:47
countries from which we have come from where our parents have come from to which we hold allegiance
26:52
maybe there are belief structures maybe our sporting connections a whole host of things
26:57
we live richly embedded lives now i think that's a conception of another conception of justice
27:04
that sees us as socially embedded in a community with obligations of solidarity that come from that
27:12
and mak if you could just move on to the next one we'll just explore some that and some limitations
27:19
look you know we as a family we you know we feel i think obligations of special responsibility to
27:26
family members relative to strangers i think it's just part of the reality of obligations of care
27:32
of support we probably we prioritize family first it's an impulse that is very difficult now sandra
27:39
gives another gives he talks about the limits of family solidarity and there you know you
27:44
you probably don't you would none of you would know about the examples he gives but
27:48
there was a a particular nasty uh thug i've forgotten his his nickname
27:57
sandium bulger operating up in up in the united states up in the northeast in in massachusetts
28:05
his criminal history was just appalling um and he went hiding but his brother was the legislator
28:12
in the massachusetts um parliament congress and his brother turned him in um because simply he
28:21
was bulger uh was actually his criminality was unaffected and the unabomber one again
28:28
it's the inner obama was a very interesting um a man with who had very strong views that probably
28:34
many people here on the on this call would share about social justice but he pursued those views by
28:42
sending uh ins the century devices through the mail um and he was he lived in a hermit's life
28:49
and would say and and and he he promised at one stage that he would stop doing that if the new
28:54
york times published on the front on its opening pages the uh a lengthy text in a a program of um
29:04
of civil uh civil action and civil reform his brother turned him in
29:09
i basically just examples of of limits of family loyalty very difficult painful ones um the brains
29:16
by the brother turned him in because he just recognized in the new york times article the the
29:20
writing style and then there's the the apology for stolen generations in australia this is you know
29:26
the the difference taken between john howard and kevin rudd do those of us living in australia now
29:33
who might have only his family may only have one or two generations of connection to the country
29:39
and who are not in who are not indigenous do they have a what is the do they have a
29:43
personal responsibility for past wrongs what is that do we have a collective risk a personal
29:49
as well as a collective responsibility and do we do in particular do we even have a collective
29:54
responsibility um and the different views taken in relation to that we're not we didn't
30:00
perpetrate the stolen generations past wrongs but nonetheless is there a degree of collective guilt
30:07
and responsibility in relation to those uh if only perhaps because one derives benefits from the um
30:14
from those that passed action and the claims are patriotism you know should
30:19
we buy australian products what if in fact an alternative product comes from a country where
30:26
levels of poverty are far greater than our own what are the what are the moral claims of buying
30:31
australia i suppose are buying australian prefer prefer prioritizing australian products what's
30:38
the significance of this conception i suppose it leads to a communitarian idea of justice
30:43
which you know that we cultivate social solidarity we that we recognize that our lives are not just
30:48
individuals atomistic individual lies but their lives that have a degree of social embeddedness
30:55
we cultivate an effort and that means to cultivate a social solidarity and a sense
30:59
of mutual responsibility i have to say the brennan justice and leadership program is that
31:04
um inequality undermines social inequality that we and would undermine that social cellular daily
31:13
through dividing life experience and life and opportunities and of course
31:17
one implication is maybe we need a culture of robust public engagement or moral disagreement
31:23
we shouldn't be driving discussions of morality and justice from the public square
31:28
this is part of a a sense of community and the engagement that comes from the community
31:34
now look i think that's all i really want to say in relation to those you know different
31:41
theories of justice it's a very inadequate one it's it's meant to open up a discussion
31:46
and i just wonder if we could just go on back to the next slide which i think is the last
31:52
and it takes us back to where we started the idea of justice who are you going to
31:57
give that flute to and why and do any of these theories help you make that decision
32:05
i wonder whether people want to um we should we just should we just take anna anna's situation
32:12
who would what's the basis for anna's what would the basis for anna's claim be do you think
32:23
if you go through those theories
32:28
don't know whether mac with you maybe you would just want to um you do you
32:31
remember the facts she's the only one who'll ever be able to play the flute
32:35
mac if you perhaps run through the um just run through some of those slides again are you okay
32:42
the question is can you source more flutes and the answer is no this is just one particular flute
32:47
yes that would be lovely if someone could come in and give a flirt to all three but there's only one
32:55
please you know please please feel free to unmute and um and come in so oh i see right so max has
33:01
said arguably uh anders cost depends upon a utilitarian utilitarianism that she will get
33:10
the greatest happiness from the flu does that max do you want to unmute and develop that
33:16
um yep hello paul um hi personally i'd probably go go with claire just in terms of the flute wouldn't
33:23
exist to begin with and therefore we wouldn't end up with the other uh ideas to consider but if i
33:28
was to argue booklet i'd say that while um there was one other party that would get happiness from
33:35
owning the flute outright even if they couldn't play it i feel that in the situation if claire was
33:41
to use the flute with her ability to perform that would outweigh in terms of like the utilization of
33:48
flute would produce the most useful happiness from the flute as opposed to it just being an object
33:52
owned by one party yeah look that's that's very clear and helpful thank you look i wonder what
33:57
should we shop sharing the screen so we can just um see each other that'd be good and phil feel
34:05
free to come in but if you want to go back to the screen to look at the slides again phil just just
34:09
let me know um yeah so just go let's just stay with claire sorry with anna first okay that's
34:16
utilitarianism does anyone see an objection to the utilitarian argument in this situation
34:27
again take take a view against max's position i guess one like you could argue that happiness
34:34
is quite a subjective thing so you can't exactly measure who would get the most happiness
34:39
because it just means different things to different people exactly that's exactly that the
34:45
there's no currency of happiness and who who would be um who would be another who's the other person
34:51
who might say my you know my utility needs to be counted my happiness needs to be counted here
34:59
i poses both of them but is that the problem bobby's bobbies are certainly clear isn't it
35:06
it's a it's an emotional attachment and you're saying we don't know how do you weigh bobbi's
35:12
against claire's against anna's happiness there's no common currency the coinage is different
35:22
i'll just put that back on so everyone can have another look
35:29
that's um is that one objection how do you measure different different elements of happiness
35:37
and what's an is there another argument that might be made for anna
35:43
and that's the pro that's the problem isn't it with the utilitarian calculus and the maths aren't
35:46
the same you know you've got apples and oranges you're weighing one against the other in terms of
35:52
who's how do you actually do the mathematics do the math what's another argument from different
35:59
theories of justice i anna's performance may bring others happiness as well says
36:05
mariam that's right that's part of the the calculus anything else any others
36:15
you're staying with the utilitarian the calculus
36:20
are these parties the only three existence or is there a third parties that make no i think
36:24
there will be others who would hear it family members anna's family member maybe
36:28
and it would perform it would be used to work for an audience
36:39
adding on to that i think maybe it's arguable that you can take the happiness perspective and put it
36:46
to claire's benefit because then her playing it could bring happiness to others through hearing
36:51
the music so it's the happiness of the greater community as opposed to one person that's sort
36:56
of just trying to think of alternate arguments yeah yeah that well and claire has the pride of
37:02
she she made the flute so she has the pride of ownership of you know if she had it she would
37:07
have the pride of the the pleasure would come from having having her own the fruits of her own labor
37:17
uh with her and and to be enjoyed even if she couldn't play it the joy of the creator
37:25
what's another what's another kind of theory of justice that anna might invoke
37:33
i was looking at um promotion of virtue um in the sense of that kind of collective
37:40
um um social connection and has the idea that you know that form of justice would promote
37:50
anna's potential as a flute player um enabling her to have flute will i guess in the words
37:59
used on the slide makes citizens wouldn't just the um purpose of giving another flute is so
38:06
he can play it i guess and um along with utilitarianism that can extend to others
38:13
and increase the aggregate happiness yep yep that's that's that's a nice invoke that's a
38:19
nice invading of the two different arguments yes is there another another way of looking at the
38:25
at the virtue argument in relation to a flute can you say a flute has a virtue can you say it
38:31
has an end what is its end what's its telos what's the purpose of which it was created
38:44
it's a musical instrument so it was created to be um played and i guess that could be compared to um
38:54
bobby rather than being played it is not really a toy it is i guess a musical instrument so that's
39:01
the perspective yeah i think that's a strong argument that the the that the purpose of a flute
39:06
at the end its ground of action was um
39:11
uh was was that the um it is to be used it's a musical instrument it's not a toy so that
39:17
so anna would would would invoke those two theories should we go on to bobby what does
39:25
what's the basis for bobby's claim in terms of these theories of justice who would he invoke
39:35
bearing in mind that anna and claire are both people who are comfortable
39:42
i think for me paul it might be um number three um and john roll's theory of the social
39:50
contract that you know everyone should have this equal um and basic opportunity um
39:57
and i guess because bobby hasn't had the enjoyment of a toy or instrument before um
40:06
his um this might i guess even the playing field and create greater sort of equality for all yeah
40:15
it would it would address us a a significant inequality
40:19
between the three in that he's he has never had a toy before he's been in poverty abject poverty
40:25
and this would you know would give some restore some measure of fairness and equality between the
40:32
three claimants and improve his position that i think would be the argument is that right anyone
40:38
would want to pick that argument up and and either develop it or or look at its limitations
40:49
it's a difficult one because this is you know these theories of justice
40:52
are meant to operate and essentially as questions about as at a societal level rather than the
40:58
indiv the level of individual claimants so there's a little bit of distortion when you
41:02
apply it to a a a purely personal individual hypothetical like this
41:12
there's not a great shift in inequality in addressing the problem of inequality but
41:17
it is moves in that direction and for bobby it has a very significant impact
41:22
his deep emotional attachment to that particular flute
41:28
and i think yeah would it um oh
41:31
molly were you going to say something i was just going to kind of contribute to that based on what
41:36
paul and um mac have said just um that yeah it wouldn't make a substantial difference compared to
41:44
um maybe a stimulus check or a you know a centrelink benefit from the government
41:52
but if claire and anna possibly or more likely i would say have other toys or objects or
42:00
other parts of their life that could keep them occupied and maybe they will discard the flute
42:07
um after a while and i will get bored maybe or claire will just kind of display it and forget
42:15
about it and let it collect dust whereas bobby does have that attachment and there's
42:19
no reason to believe that later on in life bobby could not actually learn how to play the flute
42:27
yeah thank you that's good it's good because we don't know what the age of anna and bobby
42:33
and claire are we assume they're young i've taken the the hypothetical as it's from the book itself
42:39
we assume they they're people who a bit younger than you young younger than you
42:42
are and we don't know maybe they're not all the same age but certainly that attachment's there
42:49
how do we know bobby will actually will like the flute even if he just believes well he we we know
42:53
that bobby does like it that he loves it he's come to form a deep emotional attachment to it
43:02
people want to pick up move on to claire's claim
43:09
how would you if you're the if you're the advocate for claire you're peering for claire
43:15
before this tribunal how would how would you frame her claim on the basis of justice
43:25
rafaela do you you've you've posted there do you want to um talk to your post
43:41
anyone want to come in unmuted yep um yeah rafaela or maximilian
43:49
if any of you would like yeah so i just say um instead of for example we've been looking a lot
43:56
into utilitarianism for the other options i'd say that the taking of the flute away from claire is
44:02
a reduction in happiness in one party for a gross or an increase overall in gross happiness however
44:08
i wouldn't see that as fair under something like a more egalitarian model um i'd probably argue that
44:14
as the creator of the flute the flute wouldn't exist without clear to begin with and we wouldn't
44:18
even be having the argument of where the flute should go if it wasn't created so at the very
44:22
least there should be a compensation to clear or she should have the right to hold on to it
44:28
that's good i think you look and that that's thanks max that's
44:32
um i i pose the notion of compensation is one that
44:37
and perhaps that is the solution but um but it's not that's not one of the options that
44:42
comes out we assume that isn't probably isn't the um i've got there's some great there's some
44:49
comments on this on scrolling down i think i think rafaela can't come on already she but she can't
44:56
admit but she's written here just to object to you i feel like we should we should ask claire
45:01
as well what her purpose of course because only she knows i'm sorry i'm scrolling down a bit more
45:10
only she only knows she knows really of course it is intrinsically not a toy whoever only claire
45:15
would really know that's is so what would be does claire's claim depend upon her purpose
45:27
what do you think is is how would you of those theories which one i know it's not transparent
45:36
but i think one of them i think could be invoked more more readily than the others
45:42
what's the basic putting it without without by ref without reference to the theories what's
45:47
the basis for claire's claim it is that she made the flute it's the work of her hands
45:54
it's the product of her of her effort um wouldn't both a marxist and a right-wing
46:02
lawyer a lawyer a right-wing politician say that she therefore has a significant moral claim
46:09
could you not put that on just on the libertarian grounds that this is something this is the product
46:15
of her of her of her own work of her own effort and achievement that she's made
46:22
it it comes and it's part of her fundamental liberty to um enjoy the fruits of our own labor
46:32
now with and to deny here that the to deny her the fruits of her labor would be to
46:37
would be to weaken the incentives to produce should be she should be entitled to those fruits
46:43
but what's missing what would there be one other matter that you would
46:47
think about uh one other question you would ask that would go to that
46:52
question we might answer that what don't we know about claire's work with the flute
47:03
what don't we know that you know would go we would that if we knew the answer
47:09
to it it would strengthen claire's claim considerably on these libertarian grounds
47:14
her motive was for making the flute um because under um libertarianism promotion of freedom
47:22
the motive not the consequence confers moral worth yes yes yes well that that's right
47:29
the um so the motive and that in that sense would be that's particularly under a certain
47:35
view wouldn't it yes the pure freedom if her motive was to produce something of value of a
47:40
purpose that might be used as a flute rather than as a toy that would certainly count
47:49
so in that sense who owned the materials from which the flute was made
47:54
would it matter that claire owned those materials
48:00
or that they were made they were owned by somebody else and she she simply received the materials
48:05
which when in respect of which ownership hadn't transferred and from them she made the flute would
48:11
that would that affect her claim on libertarian grounds or on any other grounds i think i think
48:20
it would simply because the creation of the flute was a collective um a collective response
48:29
and that it's more than simply um uh her choice um claire's choice because she made it it would
48:39
be up to you know maybe more than one person yep yep got a few more comments coming in yeah matt
48:49
do you want to uh do you want to outline pick up comments that yeah i think hugh has an interesting
48:57
point um he said that um the question then becomes when do collective social rights override
49:04
individual rights um what if this wasn't a flu but medicine yeah i think it's quite interesting
49:15
and that's and that's that's of course been a part of the story of covet hasn't it to what extent do
49:20
you seek to protect those who are most vulnerable in in in aged care facilities and elsewhere
49:27
even at the cost by by clamping down on the liberties of other people the extents of lockdowns
49:34
most particularly in victoria that's been a clear con conflict between collective interests
49:41
in the interests of a particular subset of the collectivity
49:49
and yeah and then raphaela has said you know perhaps claire was commissioned for this flute
49:55
that perhaps ownership has already been um granted which i guess comes to the question of
50:02
um equality as well um yeah like you were saying is this is this flute going to be in a gift shop
50:09
or is this flute you know it's taken a year to make and it's for one person in mind um
50:16
who's who's entitled to it yeah yep i would that i think that's a that's a that's a very good point
50:25
we know nothing about the circumstances in which he made it
50:33
um i think max had a question if you max if you'd like to ask go for it oh cool sorry this is a bit
50:39
outside the hypothetical but um paul i just wanted to get your opinion in terms of these different
50:44
justice systems as they relate to for example different countries of different population
50:49
sizes and socioeconomic statuses would you say that different systems could be utilized at
50:55
different levels and would have like a different overall utility for example maybe if it's a more
51:01
impoverished country they don't have the luxury to process or do things through a system which
51:07
would be fair at every party and that a more utilitarian system would overall end up leading
51:12
to the most prosperous growth of the society yeah well the um clearly different countries had
51:20
have different traditions that shape the the the balance between um the individual rights and the
51:29
rights the focus upon the collectivity that's the fundamental difference between i suppose
51:34
you know western systems with its individual particularly those that have a very strong
51:39
individualistic philosophy of which the united states is perhaps the the obvious paradigm
51:45
and those that that come from from command economies where the the the focus of which
51:54
the soviet union was perhaps one was perhaps again again a modern paradigm command
52:00
economies where the focus is nominally upon the collective and they see in eastern formal terms
52:07
though they're different traditions india stands as a nice example in the sense that the india
52:14
has a very strong collective tradition in policy and decision making but is also
52:22
a very strong tradition of reflecting you know of of stressing and paying homage to individual
52:30
and political rights civil and political rights a good expression of it is in the united nations
52:35
in the principle instruments under the united know human rights instruments under the united
52:41
nations the universal declaration of civil and political rights in 1948 adopted by the
52:47
united nations has both civil and political rights which are essentially concerned with
52:52
individ the rights of individuals to freedom of speech freedom to to believe a quality of
52:58
of treatment but also his economic and social and cultural rights and that was that was
53:04
a non-binding declaration of principle um but it it would needed to be expressed in
53:10
other in in other instruments of universal human rights and the two principal ones that grew from
53:16
that were the international covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant
53:21
on economic social and cultural rights now the united states for example has never adopted the
53:26
latter one its focus has been exclusively upon the implementation of both the international
53:32
of the international covenant and civil and political rights australia has ratified both
53:37
but the implementation has been fuller in relation to the former the civil and political rights than
53:44
the economic social and cultural and generally western democracies are more modest in their
53:49
implementation of the economic social and cultural rights so there are different traditions which one
53:56
is best is essentially a matter for individual countries i you know and to state a personal
54:02
preference i'd i'd rather do it at this time and you know obviously i i would feel a sense that the
54:09
that we need to be concerned with economic and social rights a sense of social solidarity
54:16
um and a sense of development of the of of that particular covenant and the rights
54:21
under it it's very worth it it's worth having a look at the the work of the special rapporteur
54:28
under the uh under i forget uh on next i think what i forgot his current his current title philip
54:34
alston an australian um who is now based in new york but he's written he's doing extraordinarily
54:40
good work in relation to poverty that that you know since the the economic right against
54:45
against put against poverty to ground certain certain protections against um uh
54:53
against extreme poverty and he's he's made some wonderful reports very significant figure
55:00
i think in a sense that goes down that that that that body of covenants that that covered
55:06
in economic social and cultural rights is grounded in more of a communitarian than an individualistic
55:12
um conception and i think you you it's looking tracking different countries ratifications and
55:20
their degree of development of each implementation of each is a way of uh marking these two different
55:26
conceptions between libertarianism on the one hand and a communitarian model on the other
55:33
of course it runs through the number of your courses you know if you do when you
55:37
do corporate law for example you'll talk about this issue will come up in talking about what's
55:42
the responsibility of corporations do they have a responsibility towards society or is
55:46
it just to shareholders to maximize profit and and shareholder wealth these questions are essentially
55:52
legal in their in their decision and of course in human rights law they're richly embedded
55:58
but i think i'm max i'm not sure i've given you a satisfactory answer but i hope i've
56:03
given you one that's opened up you know the issue of the balance between the two
56:09
of course the other comment to make simply is every country has its own path it's dependent upon
56:14
it's a it's past path it's past identity it's past traditions and culture we're all in we're
56:20
all embedded in our own culture our culture in australia was quite specific to particular
56:26
um things look i think i should hush there though mac and um give you back the floor no that was
56:32
great paul i think um it's just hit 2 p.m um so i think we'll have to wrap it up there everyone um
56:40
thank you everyone for all those great questions yeah and and for using the chat so well um
56:47
and also thank you paul for your time knowledge and expertise this afternoon
56:52
i know personally this is the second time i've attended um the what is justice
57:00
talk and i think the second time i've definitely got even more out of it so thank you very much
57:06
and i just wanted to remind everyone that we have another justice talk coming up soon
57:13
it's with the honourable justice anne ainsley wallace a judge of the appeals division of the
57:18
family court of australia and an adjunct professor at uts i'm just going to put the link to the event
57:27
in the chat box it's going to be in the great hall so it'll be an in-person event and you'll
57:34
be able to ask questions on the night as well in person which i think will be really great um
57:40
yeah please sign up if you'd like i think it'll be a really worthwhile opportunity look i just
57:47
add she is tremendous she's a great speaker this this this talk will change your thinking about
57:53
what you want to do come i i i've heard her speak to students before she's one of the best speakers
57:59
we've had in 11 years of the brenham program and she really does have an impact she's got
58:04
something to say not just about the family you only probably want to mention family law
58:09
but you'll talk about being a lawyer about being a law student what it means and what you can get
58:14
from it it will actually change your thinking dramatically tell your friends to come too
58:22
yeah and it'll be it'll be in person as well which will be really nice
58:26
um we're going to have microphones set up on the night so you'll be able to um walk up and ask a
58:32
question if you like as well okay all right all right well thank you everyone so much for coming
58:41
uh we really appreciate it and yeah i hope to see a few of you
58:45
around campus and at the next justice talk event soon bye everyone bye-bye
-
What do we mean by justice? What are some competing conceptions of justice that might be applied interpersonally and in society? How do different ideas of justice give us frameworks for thinking around specific problems that law and society face in finding ways for all of us to live together harmoniously despite our competing interests and diverse conceptions of the good life?
Guest speaker: Emeritus Professor Paul Redmond, UTS Law
What do we mean by justice? What are some competing conceptions of justice that might be applied interpersonally and in society? How do different ideas of justice give us frameworks for thinking around specific problems that law and society face in finding ways for all of us to live together harmoniously despite our competing interests and diverse conceptions of the good life?
Guest speaker: Emeritus Professor Paul Redmond, UTS Law