Social Contract and Distributive Justice Exercise

Purpose:
Two of the major  topics in the political philosophy unit of my Introduction to Philosophy class are political organization/social contract and theories of distributive justice. We discuss Marx and communism, Nozick’s minimal state, and Rawl’s welfare liberalism. In order  for the class to better understand both possible  ways a society may be organized and may distribute  wealth and responsibilities (distributive justice),  I created the following  exercise. In addition I wanted to make my students aware of what some people believe to be an unjust  distribution of wealth and power in American  society.

The Exercise:

Starting  with a class of  twenty-five  students, I assume the  role of the  government. I  distribute 50  pennies  to five students equally and offer to sell them a $1.00 pack of gum (with 18 sticks) for 50 cents. ( I will not  sell the sticks of gum individually). I suggest  that they could elect a leader to  decide or form a legislative  body that could use a simple majority or super majority to  decide the action. If they buy the  pack, then  they must  decide a fair distribution of the 18 sticks among 5 members.

Once they have accomplished  this  task, I repeat the exercise with an unequal distribution of wealth (15,15, 10, 5,5). Now I  suggest that in business  situations commonly stock holders  vote their  share.

Once the  second task is accomplished, I have the class discuss the  theory  behind the decision-making process and the ultimate  distribution of the  gum.

Most students are inclined to accept the  various ways the  five students have decided to make their  decision and to distribute the gum. Then I point out that the majority of the  class (20 of  25) has been arbitrarily excluded from the distribution of the wealth and, by the group, from the decision making process. This gives rise to a reconsideration of justice and fairness.

We then discuss how a Marxist and how a communist society might distribute the  50 cents  equally, how they might  decide democratically, and how any unequal distribution might be  based on need.

Finally I present  real data on the  distribution of wealth in America. 10% of  the population holds 71% of the  wealth with the top 1 % of the population holding 38% of the wealth. The bottom 40% of the population divides less than 1% of the  wealth.

I do a proportionate redistribution of the  wealth  with 10% (3 students) getting to split 35 cents (18,9,8). So the  22 remaining  students split the  remaining 15 cents. Half  get less than a penny, so 4 get 2 cents and 7 get 1 cent.

If the class votes to buy the  gum, should the  three wealthy  students get to divide 12 of the 18 sticks? If so, is there a fair  way to divide the remaining six sticks among 22 students, half of whom have contributed nothing?

Once again I raise the question of fairness. Does it matter how the  3 wealthy students derived their wealth? Did they earn it? Did they inherit it?  (In 1997 Forbes  reported that 70%  of the wealthiest 400 Americans  inherited the money or the  business.) How did the top 1% of Americans gain their wealth? How should the  government redistribute  wealth?

To end the  exercise I collect my 50  pennies and bring out a second pack of gum, so everyone can have a piece.

Conclusion:

I used this as a review exercise and as a meaning to get  students to challenge their assumptions about political organization and distributive  justice. To a degree Marxism looks a little better in this scenario.