Solidarity and social justice
Lecture 1 – Introduction
Solidarity:
Sociological and philosophical roots:
Shared aims and interests
Shared life experiences (work, community)
Fraternity (botherhood)
Community: a willingness to share resources
A moral principle underlying society & the welfare state
Psychological roots:
Cooperation/ altruism/ prosocial behavior (helping behavior)
Belongingness (one of the basic human needs)/ affiliations (about feelings)
Social identity/ inclusion & exclusion (in- and out-group)
Social justice:
Sociological and philosophical roots:
Redistribution of resources (who should me burdened, who should be benefit)
Division of divide fundamental rights and obligations
An underlying moral principle/ set of principles in society
Psychological roots:
Distributive fairness (fairness of outcomes)
Procedural fairness (fairness of porcicides)
Self-transcending (vs. self-enhancing) value/ motive
Interdisciplinary perspective: sociology/ (political) philosophy/ psychology. And where these
perspectives contrast and meet.
Most of the topics in this course are value-laden in discussion these issues you implement your
background. Important to reflect on own values
Group discussions ≠ Polarizing debates. It can easily turn from group discussion to polarizing debates,
if the discussion is about a value-laden topic.
Safe environment to speak your mind
Openness to and respect for different opinions
On content; not on person
Ted-talk Michael Kimmel: “Privilege is invisible for those who have it”
Do we have self-transcending motives of justice and solidarity or is all behavior ultimately driven
by self-interest?
In this lecture showing main arguments from both sides of the debate.
Homo economicus:
Rational Choice Theory: people are rational beings, weighing costs and benefits and striving for
maximum net benefit
Theory of Evolution: natural selection: there are hereditary traits with blind variation and
differences in fitness of the variants of these traits Descent with modifitcation/ survival of the
fittest (those genes/traits who are most fit are having a higher chance of surviving than other
genes)
Both theories assume that: humans are basically self-interested.
Theory of evolution has to favour selfish behavior. Natural selection favors selfishness. These models
cannot adequately account for human cooperation…
Every population will end up being a population made up completely of defectors.
1
,Corporators always have to share some costs, and these costs don’t have to make by the defectors.
Defectors have less costs and more benefits.
C = corporators
D = defectors
RCT favors selfishness: Prisoner’s Dilemma: you have to decide whether or not you have to
cooperate with your partner (so you stay true with your partner or not). If both cooperate, you both
get 3 years in prison (3/3). However, if you confess you get 1 year and the other 10 and the other
way around (1/10 or 10/1). If both confess, you both get 5 years (5/5).
3/3 10/1
1/10 5/5
The rational choice in this dilemma is to confess (not cooperate defect).
Social value orientation: prosocials are more likely to … (terugluisteren college)
Justice motive is also in animals. So, then justice motive is instinctive (video 2 monkeys were paid
unequally).
Batson and colleagues:
Objective: “Try to be as objective as possible about what had happened to the person
interviewed and how it had affected his or her life”
Imagine-other: “Try to imagine how the person being interviewed feels about what has
happened and how this affected his or her life”
Imagine-self: “Try to imagine how you yourself would feel if you were experiencing what has
happened to the person being interviewed and how this experience would affect your life”
Do we have self-transcending (often shown in reality) motives of justice and solidarity or is all
behavior ultimately driven by self-interest (most rational)?
What is justice and why is it important?
Rawls: “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.”
Injustice is only ok if it helps to prevent greater injustice (one question: is it ok to arrest someone and
put them in jail? Yes, it is, because it helps to prevent greater injustice to other members in the
2
, society). We are all kind of reasonable people. On the one hand, there is a reason why we cooperate
it can benefit you (common interests), but you can also get self-interested (conflict of interests).
Sometimes you want to cooperate, sometimes you are self-interested. You need to trust: without no
justice! So, justice requires trust! Lack of faith/trust in social institutions is a great problem (as no
trust in Trump)
Key terms: part 1
Concept (of justice): abstract idea, notion
Conceptions (of justice): what we perceive to be fair/justice (we might see different groups)
Principles (of justice): fundamental truth/foundation for a belief system (we can’t have a
discussion about what we perceive to be justice, without looking on the principles of justice)
The ‘initial’ or original position: a hypothetical situation.
He assumes no one knows their place in society. In this initial position, everyone is equal. ‘Veil of
ignorance’: if we can start out with the veil of ignorance, we can get justice. In other words, the
original position is the veil of ignorance. This ‘initial position’ is key to understanding Rawls’
thought experiment. From this position, it follows that principles of justices are needed.
Key terms: part 2
Difference principle (versus utility): when some inequality is acceptable. When the most
disadvantage people benefit (get the most), then some injustice is acceptable. So, as long as the
worst have the most benefit, some injustice is acceptable.
Social contract: implicitly we have an agreement how to behave. Some agreement of what we
think is acceptable. What rights and duties we have.
Justice as fairness
Putting it all together
See society as a house. A house needs a fundament.
Rawls sees a social ideal.
Problems with Rawls:
Theory vs. Reality (he based his theory on democracy, but we don’t have a balance in reality.
There is significant power)
Lack of trust in governing bodies?
Individual responsibility for outcomes? (his veil of ignorance doesn’t say anything about
individual responsibility)
Rights and benefits for whom? (who has rights and duties?)
Summary
Many conceptions of what justice is; an ongoing debate
Principles of justice: foundation for society
‘Initial’ position: veil of ignorance (need to do this from this position)
Inequality? Only if… (when the worst get the most or when it prevents even greater injustice, it
is acceptable)
Lecture 2 – Solidarity: A sociological & psychological perspective
Sociological/historical/(philosophical) perspective
3
Lecture 1 – Introduction
Solidarity:
Sociological and philosophical roots:
Shared aims and interests
Shared life experiences (work, community)
Fraternity (botherhood)
Community: a willingness to share resources
A moral principle underlying society & the welfare state
Psychological roots:
Cooperation/ altruism/ prosocial behavior (helping behavior)
Belongingness (one of the basic human needs)/ affiliations (about feelings)
Social identity/ inclusion & exclusion (in- and out-group)
Social justice:
Sociological and philosophical roots:
Redistribution of resources (who should me burdened, who should be benefit)
Division of divide fundamental rights and obligations
An underlying moral principle/ set of principles in society
Psychological roots:
Distributive fairness (fairness of outcomes)
Procedural fairness (fairness of porcicides)
Self-transcending (vs. self-enhancing) value/ motive
Interdisciplinary perspective: sociology/ (political) philosophy/ psychology. And where these
perspectives contrast and meet.
Most of the topics in this course are value-laden in discussion these issues you implement your
background. Important to reflect on own values
Group discussions ≠ Polarizing debates. It can easily turn from group discussion to polarizing debates,
if the discussion is about a value-laden topic.
Safe environment to speak your mind
Openness to and respect for different opinions
On content; not on person
Ted-talk Michael Kimmel: “Privilege is invisible for those who have it”
Do we have self-transcending motives of justice and solidarity or is all behavior ultimately driven
by self-interest?
In this lecture showing main arguments from both sides of the debate.
Homo economicus:
Rational Choice Theory: people are rational beings, weighing costs and benefits and striving for
maximum net benefit
Theory of Evolution: natural selection: there are hereditary traits with blind variation and
differences in fitness of the variants of these traits Descent with modifitcation/ survival of the
fittest (those genes/traits who are most fit are having a higher chance of surviving than other
genes)
Both theories assume that: humans are basically self-interested.
Theory of evolution has to favour selfish behavior. Natural selection favors selfishness. These models
cannot adequately account for human cooperation…
Every population will end up being a population made up completely of defectors.
1
,Corporators always have to share some costs, and these costs don’t have to make by the defectors.
Defectors have less costs and more benefits.
C = corporators
D = defectors
RCT favors selfishness: Prisoner’s Dilemma: you have to decide whether or not you have to
cooperate with your partner (so you stay true with your partner or not). If both cooperate, you both
get 3 years in prison (3/3). However, if you confess you get 1 year and the other 10 and the other
way around (1/10 or 10/1). If both confess, you both get 5 years (5/5).
3/3 10/1
1/10 5/5
The rational choice in this dilemma is to confess (not cooperate defect).
Social value orientation: prosocials are more likely to … (terugluisteren college)
Justice motive is also in animals. So, then justice motive is instinctive (video 2 monkeys were paid
unequally).
Batson and colleagues:
Objective: “Try to be as objective as possible about what had happened to the person
interviewed and how it had affected his or her life”
Imagine-other: “Try to imagine how the person being interviewed feels about what has
happened and how this affected his or her life”
Imagine-self: “Try to imagine how you yourself would feel if you were experiencing what has
happened to the person being interviewed and how this experience would affect your life”
Do we have self-transcending (often shown in reality) motives of justice and solidarity or is all
behavior ultimately driven by self-interest (most rational)?
What is justice and why is it important?
Rawls: “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.”
Injustice is only ok if it helps to prevent greater injustice (one question: is it ok to arrest someone and
put them in jail? Yes, it is, because it helps to prevent greater injustice to other members in the
2
, society). We are all kind of reasonable people. On the one hand, there is a reason why we cooperate
it can benefit you (common interests), but you can also get self-interested (conflict of interests).
Sometimes you want to cooperate, sometimes you are self-interested. You need to trust: without no
justice! So, justice requires trust! Lack of faith/trust in social institutions is a great problem (as no
trust in Trump)
Key terms: part 1
Concept (of justice): abstract idea, notion
Conceptions (of justice): what we perceive to be fair/justice (we might see different groups)
Principles (of justice): fundamental truth/foundation for a belief system (we can’t have a
discussion about what we perceive to be justice, without looking on the principles of justice)
The ‘initial’ or original position: a hypothetical situation.
He assumes no one knows their place in society. In this initial position, everyone is equal. ‘Veil of
ignorance’: if we can start out with the veil of ignorance, we can get justice. In other words, the
original position is the veil of ignorance. This ‘initial position’ is key to understanding Rawls’
thought experiment. From this position, it follows that principles of justices are needed.
Key terms: part 2
Difference principle (versus utility): when some inequality is acceptable. When the most
disadvantage people benefit (get the most), then some injustice is acceptable. So, as long as the
worst have the most benefit, some injustice is acceptable.
Social contract: implicitly we have an agreement how to behave. Some agreement of what we
think is acceptable. What rights and duties we have.
Justice as fairness
Putting it all together
See society as a house. A house needs a fundament.
Rawls sees a social ideal.
Problems with Rawls:
Theory vs. Reality (he based his theory on democracy, but we don’t have a balance in reality.
There is significant power)
Lack of trust in governing bodies?
Individual responsibility for outcomes? (his veil of ignorance doesn’t say anything about
individual responsibility)
Rights and benefits for whom? (who has rights and duties?)
Summary
Many conceptions of what justice is; an ongoing debate
Principles of justice: foundation for society
‘Initial’ position: veil of ignorance (need to do this from this position)
Inequality? Only if… (when the worst get the most or when it prevents even greater injustice, it
is acceptable)
Lecture 2 – Solidarity: A sociological & psychological perspective
Sociological/historical/(philosophical) perspective
3
