Nike: Justice as Fairness

Rawlsian Justice of Fairness

        Developed by John Rawls in the early 1970s, Rawls described his conception of justice in order to provide a moral principle of rightness for society to live by. To do this he coined the idea of the veil of ignorance. This veil is the idea that in order to be rational in ethical decision making, a person would need to remove personal bias from the choice of principles. The veil would remove the race, sex, abilities, religions etc. of those involved decide on the correct moral principles to live by (HER SLIDES CHAPTER2).

        Rawls concluded that there are three moral principles to create his justice as fairness; The principle of equal liberty, the difference principle and the principle of fair equality of opportunity.

The principle of equal liberty contends that each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. These are liberties such as freedom to vote, hold private property etc. These freedoms must also no impede the actions of others. In other words, if everyone could have a freedom simultaneously then we should all have that freedom.

The difference principle contends that social and economic inequalities are arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit to the least advantaged persons. Finally, the principle of fair equality of opportunity contends that social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. That is, we should avoid actions or decisions that prevent particular people from attaining those positions based on the previously mentioned personal biases (http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-23-3-c-justice-as-fairness-john-rawls-and-his-theory-of-justice).

Rawls finally prioritized these three principles for when they may be in conflict. He argues they should be ordered as follows: principle of equal liberty, principle of fair equality of opportunity, difference principle. Applying Rawls theory to Nike should then be done based on this order of prioritization.

Based on the principle of equal liberty Nike has failed to remain ethical within Rawlsian Justice framework of ethics. A basic human right is to be compensated fairly for the work that you do. In this a person should be provided a livable wage in order to support themselves. Nike has claimed that it is providing more than the minimum wage for workers in each country, a claim that is being challenged by some critics (http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/threads_and_laces/2014/05/whats-it-like-to-work-at-a-nike-contract-factory.html). Despite this factory workers in areas such as Indonesia are not satisfied with their wages and in most cities the minimum wage is not enough to satisfy the basic cost of living(http://www.globalindonesianvoices.com/11508/are-our-workers-paid-enough/) .