Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Justice and Fairness Promoting Common Good
Typology: Essays (university)
Limited-time offer
Uploaded on 05/11/2020
5
(3)2 documents
1 / 20
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
On special offer
Prepare by: Joel Sabal Jr. Divine Grace Bascugin Nicollete Justine Norbe John Neary Matic Cathlyn Joy Reyes Dave Gondrie Brillo Neil James Rotairo Jean Kearny Estolas Niel Christian Garcia Jelyn Mae Vibandor Jhon Paulo Guiruela Rocel Bolante Andrew Casajeros
Justice and Fairness Promoting the Common Good Arguments about justice or fairness have a long tradition in Western civilization. In fact, no idea in Western civilization has been more consistently linked to ethics and morality than the idea of justice. From the Republic, written by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, to A Theory of Justice, written by the late Harvard philosopher John Rawls, every major work on ethics has held that justice is part of the central core of morality. Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each person his or her due. Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are often today used interchangeably. There have, however, also been more distinct understandings of the two terms. While justice usually has been used with reference to a standard of rightness, fairness often has been used with regard to an ability to judge without reference to one's feelings or interests; fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to make judgments that are not overly general but that are concrete and specific to a particular case. In any case, a notion of being treated as one deserves is crucial to both justice and fairness. When people differ over what they believe should be given, or when decisions have to be made about how benefits and burdens should be distributed among a group of people, questions of justice or fairness inevitably arise. In fact, most ethicists today hold the view that there would be no point of talking about justice or fairness if it were not for the conflicts of interest that are created when goods and services are scarce and people differ over who should get what. When such conflicts arise in our society, we need principles of justice that we can all accept as reasonable and fair standards for determining what people deserve. But saying that justice is giving each person what he or she deserves does not take us very far. How do we determine what people deserve? What criteria and what principles should we use to determine what is due to this or that person? Principles of Justice The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved." For example, if Jack and Jill both do the same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Jack is paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an injustice—a form of discrimination—because race and sex are not relevant to normal work situations. There are, however, many differences that we deem as justifiable criteria for treating people differently. For example, we think it is fair and just when a parent gives his own children more attention and care in his private affairs than he gives the children of others; we think it is fair when the person who is first in a line at a theater is given first choice of theater tickets; we think it is just when the government gives benefits to the needy that it does not provide to more affluent citizens; we think it is just when some who have done wrong are given punishments that are
the interests that members have in common or to the facilities that serve common interests. For example, people may say, “the new public library will serve the common good” or “the public library is part of the common good”. As a philosophical concept, the common good is best understood as part of an encompassing model for practical reasoning among the members of a political community. The model takes for granted that citizens stand in a “political” or “civic” relationship with one another and that this relationship requires them to create and maintain certain facilities on the grounds that these facilities serve certain common interests. The relevant facilities and interests together constitute the common good and serve as a shared standpoint for political deliberation.[1] When citizens face various questions about legislation, public policy or social responsibility, they resolve these questions by appeal to a conception of the relevant facilities and the relevant interests. That is, they argue about what facilities have a special claim on their attention, how they should expand, contract or maintain existing facilities, and what facilities they should design and build in the future. The common good is an important concept in political philosophy because it plays a central role in philosophical reflection about the public and private dimensions of social life. Let’s say that “public life” in a political community consists of a shared effort among members to maintain certain facilities for the sake of common interests. “Private life” consists of each member’s pursuit of a distinct set of personal projects. As members of a political community, we are each involved in our community’s public life and in our own private lives, and this raises an array of questions about the nature and scope of each of these enterprises. For example, when are we supposed to make decisions based on the common good? Most of us would agree that we are required to do so when we act as legislators or civil servants. But what about as journalists, corporate executives or consumers? More fundamentally, why should we care about the common good? What would be wrong with a community whose members withdraw from public life and focus exclusively on their own private lives? These are some of the questions that motivate philosophical discussions of the common good. This article reviews the philosophical literature, covering various points of agreement among traditional conceptions of the common good, such as those favored by Plato, Aristotle, John Locke, J.J. Rousseau, Adam Smith, G.W.F. Hegel, John Rawls and Michael Walzer. It also covers some important disagreements, especially the disagreement between “communal” and “distributive” views. It concludes by considering three important topics in the literature: democracy, communal sharing, and competitive markets. In order to understand the issues, it is helpful to start by distinguishing the common good from various notions of the good that play a prominent role in welfare economics and welfare consequentialist accounts of political morality.
The Nature of Theory In A Theory of Justice (1971), the American philosopher John Rawls attempted to develop a non-utilitarian justification of a democratic political order characterized by fairness, equality, and individual rights. Reviving the notion of a social contract, which had been dormant since the 18th century, he imagined a hypothetical situation in which a group of rational individuals are rendered ignorant of all social and economic facts about themselves—including facts about their race, sex, religion, education, intelligence, talents or skills, and even their conception of the “good life”—and then asked to decide what general principles should govern the political institutions under which they live. From behind this “veil of ignorance,” Rawls argues, such a group would unanimously reject utilitarian principles—such as “political institutions should aim to maximize the happiness of the greatest number”—because no member of the group could know whether he belonged to a minority whose rights and interests might be neglected under institutions justified on utilitarian grounds. Instead, reason and self-interest would lead the group to adopt principles such as the following: (1) everyone should have a maximum and equal degree of liberty, including all the liberties traditionally associated with democracy; (2) everyone should have an equal opportunity to seek offices and positions that offer greater rewards of wealth, power, status, or other social goods; and (3) the distribution of wealth in society should be such that those who are least well-off are better off than they would be under any other distribution, whether equal or unequal. (Rawls holds that, given certain assumptions about human motivation, some inequality in the distribution of wealth may be necessary to achieve higher levels of productivity. It is therefore possible to imagine unequal distributions of wealth in which those who are least well-off are better off than they would be under an equal distribution.) These principles amount to an egalitarian form of democratic liberalism. Rawls is accordingly regarded as the leading philosophical defender of the modern democratic capitalist welfare state. John Rawls, (born Feb. 21, 1921, Baltimore, Md., U.S.—died Nov. 24, 2002, Lexington, Mass.), American political and ethical philosopher, best known for his defense of egalitarian liberalism in his major work, A Theory of Justice (1971). He is widely considered the most important political philosopher of the 20th century. Rawls was the second of five children of William Lee Rawls and Anna Abell Stump. After attending an Episcopalian preparatory school, Kent School, in Connecticut, he entered Princeton University, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in 1943. He enlisted in the army later that year and served with the infantry in the South Pacific until his discharge in 1945. He returned to Princeton in 1946 and earned a Ph.D. in moral philosophy in 1950. He taught at Princeton (1950–52), Cornell University (1953–59), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1960–62), and finally Harvard University, where he was appointed James Bryant Conant University Professor in 1979
In Rawls’s view, Soviet-style communism is unjust because it is incompatible with most basic liberties and because it does not provide everyone with a fair and equal opportunity to obtain desirable offices and positions. Pure laissez-faire capitalism is also unjust, because it tends to produce an unjust distribution of wealth and income (concentrated in the hands of a few), which in turn effectively deprives some (if not most) citizens of the basic means necessary to compete fairly for desirable offices and positions. A just society, according to Rawls, would be a “property-owning democracy” in which ownership of the means of production is widely distributed and those who are worst off are prosperous enough to be economically independent. Although Rawls generally avoided discussion of specific political arrangements, his work is widely interpreted as providing a philosophical foundation for egalitarian liberalism as imperfectly manifested in the modern capitalist welfare state or in a market-oriented social democracy. In a later work, Political Liberalism (1993), Rawls revised the argument for the two principles of justice by construing the contracting individuals as representatives of conflicting comprehensive worldviews in a pluralistic democracy. Rawls also wrote works on international justice and human rights and on the history of moral and political philosophy. A Theory of Justice is a 1971 work of political philosophy and ethics by John Rawls, in which the author addresses the problem of distributive justice (the socially just distribution of goods in a society). The theory utilises an updated form of Kantian philosophy and a variant form of conventional social contract theory. Rawls's theory of justice is fully a political theory of justice as opposed to other forms of justice discussed in other disciplines and contexts. The resultant theory was challenged and refined several times in the decades following its original publication in 1971. A significant reappraisal was published in the 1985 essay "Justice as Fairness", and a subsequent book under the same title, within which Rawls further developed his two central principles for his discussion of justice. Together, they dictate that society should be structured so that the greatest possible amount of liberty is given to its members, limited only by the notion that the liberty of any one member shall not infringe upon that of any other member. Secondly, inequalities–either social or economic–are only to be allowed if the worst off will be better off than they might be under an equal distribution. Finally, if there is such a beneficial inequality, this inequality should not make it harder for those without resources to occupy positions of power – for instance, public office.[1] First published in 1971, A Theory of Justice was revised in 1975, while translated editions were being released in the 1990s it was further revised in 1999. In 2001, Rawls published a follow-up study titled Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.
The Notion of Fair Distribution Distributive justice is concerned with the fair allocation of resources among diverse members of a community. Fair allocation typically takes into account the total amount of goods to be distributed, the distributing procedure, and the pattern of distribution that results: In Global Distributive Justice , Armstrong distinguishes between distributive justice generally and principles of distributive justice. Armstrong defines distributive justice as the ways that the benefits and burdens of our lives are shared between members of a society or community. Principles of distributive justice tell us how these benefits and burdens ought to be shared or distributed. Because societies have a limited amount of wealth and resources, the question of how those benefits ought to be distributed frequently arises. The common answer is that public assets should be distributed in a reasonable manner so that each individual receives a "fair share." But this leaves open the question of what constitutes a "fair share." Various principles might determine of how goods are distributed. Equality, equity, and need are among the most common criteria. If equality is regarded as the ultimate criterion determining who gets what, goods will be distributed equally among all persons. (In other words each person will get the same amount.) However, due to differences in levels of need, this will not result in an equal outcome. (For example, every incoming freshman to a local college with a grade point above 3.0 might be offered a $500 scholarship. This is a nice reward for students and parents who can afford the remaining tuition, but is of no help to families that cannot afford the additional $6000/year fee to attend the school.) Another possibility is to proceed according to a principle of equity, and distribute benefits in proportion to the individuals' contribution. Thus, those who make a greater productive contribution to their group deserve to receive more benefits. (Thus, in theory, people who work harder in more valuable jobs should earn more money.) This sort of distribution is typically associated with an economic system where there is equal opportunity to compete. In competitive systems, wealth or goods might also be distributed according to effort or ability. Or, we might distribute goods according to need, so that an equal outcome results. Those who need more of a benefit or resource will receive more, as occurs when colleges offer needs- based scholarships, or states provide welfare payments to the poor. Some suggest a system of competition that includes safety nets for those who cannot compete. This sort of system combines the principle of equity with that of need. It attempts to reward people for their productivity at the same time that it ensures their basic needs are met. Finally, we might distribute resources according to social utility, or what is in the best interests of society as a whole. This is the argument that is frequently made by high-paid executives,
should pay for medical care for the uninsured, or who should have to live next to a dump or a jail. Why Distributive Justice Matters According to the theory of relative deprivation, a sense of injustice is aroused when individuals come to believe that their outcome is not in balance with the outcomes received by people like them in similar situations. When people have a sense that they are at an unfair disadvantage relative to others, or that they have not received their "fair share," they may wish to challenge the system that has given rise to this state of affairs. This is especially likely to happen if a person or groups' fundamental needs are not being met, or if there are large discrepancies between the "haves" and the "have-nots." This is particularly apparent in both Europe and the Middle East in 2013, but is also going on, to a lesser extent (and much less violently) in the U.S. where the distribution of wealth is getting more and more unequal. (See Rich/Poor Conflicts) While it is clear to most people (at least in the US) that skin color or religion should not be valid criteria of distribution, real-life experience suggests that such factors often turn out to be quite significant. In the United States, as elsewhere, issues of distributive justice are connected to concerns about systemic poverty and racism, and questions about the fairness of affirmative action -- policies that grant preferential treatment to particular racial or gender groups. Societies in which resources are distributed unfairly can become quite prone to social unrest. For example, "since the colonial period, unfair land distribution and the prevailing agricultural economic system have been the prime causes of armed and civil resistance in Guatemala. While national and international elites enjoy largely unrestricted access to communal lands expropriated from the Maya, the majority of Guatemalans live in poverty, on farms smaller than those required to feed the average family. This sort of land distribution violates principles of equality, equity, and need, and therefore generates conflict. Redistribution of benefits can sometimes help to relieve tensions and allow for a more stable society. However, redistribution always has losers, and they often initiate a conflict of their own. This is apparent in the US, where opposition to affirmative action has always been strong. Similar policies preferentially treating Maylays and indigenous people in Malaysia is currently (2013) leading to tension and conflict--though not violence, at least as of yet. Although always challenging, to the extent that re-distribution can be enacted by the government through what is widely perceived to be a legitimate decision making process, success is more likely to be achieved. If the redistribution process is seen as illegitimate, renewed conflict is a more likely outcome. Balancing out gross inequalities of wealth might also be part of compensatory justice after periods of war. During periods of postwar adjustment and peacebuilding efforts, long-term economic policy must aim to achieve equity, or balance in the distribution of income and wealth. Issues of distributive justice are in this way central to
any peacebuilding or reconstruction program. Such efforts to ensure a just distribution of benefits following conflict are typically accompanied by democratization efforts to ensure a more balanced distribution of power as well. Egalitarian Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. An alternative view expands on this last-mentioned option: People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. So far as the Western European and Anglo-American philosophical tradition is concerned, one significant source of this thought is the Christian notion that God loves all human souls equally. Egalitarianism is a protean doctrine, because there are several different types of equality, or ways in which people might be treated the same, or might relate as equals, that might be thought desirable. In modern democratic societies, the term “egalitarian” is often used to refer to a position that favors, for any of a wide array of reasons, a greater degree of equality of income and wealth across persons than currently exists. Egalitarianism is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals from birth, usually meaning held equal under the law and in society at large. It is a belief in human equality, especially with respect to social , political and economic rights and privileges, and advocates the removal of inequalities among people and of discrimination (on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc). Political philosophies such as Socialism, Marxism, Communism and Anarchism all support the principles of Egalitarianism to some degree. Some argue that modern representative democracy is a realization of political Egalitarianism, while others believe that, in reality , most political power still resides in the hands of a ruling class , rather than equally in the hands of the people. For example, the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776 includes a kind of moral and legal Egalitarianism in its assertion that "all men are created equal" (and therefore that each person is to be treated equally under the law), but it was not until much later that U.S. society extended these benefits to slaves , women and other groups. The motto of the French Revolution of 1789, "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" , was only really institutionalized during the Third Republic at the end of the 19th Century. The term is derived from the French word "égal", meaning "equal" or "level", and was first used in English in the 1880s, although the equivalent term "equalitarian" dates from the late 18th Century. Types of Egalitarianism
conception has an often overlooked moral dimension, according to which the coordination‐faire problems that trouble real world market economies produce an arbitrary and inequitable‐faire distribution of wealth and income. Distributive Justice: One of the things that can be evaluated as just of unjust is the distribution of the benefits and burdens of a society. Contrast this notion of “Justice” with two other notions: Retributive Justice: (Lex Talionis). That principle of justice which requires that we “give back (re-tribute) to the giver what he initially gave.” Alternatively, it is the motivation behind the idea of “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.[1]” Most often this principle of justice is invoked to justify the punishment of crimes. This is the concern (arguably) of criminal courts. Also contrast with: Compensatory Justice: That principle of justice which requires that individuals be compensated for effort they have expended or harms they have suffered. Here the aim is not punishment for a crime or sin or moral infraction, but rather compensation. This is the concern of civil courts when plaintiffs seek compensatory (not punitive) damages. It is also the concern of arbiters seeking “just wages.” Distributive Justice is concerned with the just distribution of societal burdens and benefits. Any given society with limited resources has only a certain amount of assorted benefits which it can bestow in a number of different ways on its members. Likewise, it has certain number of burdens which must be bared for the continuation of the society. So the questions becomes: Given the limited resources, who should get the goodies and how much of them should they get? Given the necessary burdens generated by social groupings, who should get the nasty jobs? Who should shoulder the unpleasant work, live in the not-so-nice part of town in the not-so-nice houses? In short, every society with limited resources must decide who will get the ocean- view condo's and who will live next to the elevator. The following Theories of Distributive Justice express competing views as to which of these ways is just.
Various Answers: Theories of Just Distribution Any notion of distributive justice accepts the idea that “ equals should be treated equally and unequals treated unequally .” (Purely formal principle of logic). Granted by all parties is that “like cases should be decided alike and where we decided differently we must provide the morally relevant difference which justifies the distinction.” But WHAT makes (or would make) a relevant difference? Is it size, shape, color, race, creed, religion, sexual orientation? Are differences in character, need, ability, effort, or productivity relevant? The following theories make out what they take to be the relevant differences among the members of society in virtue of which they are entitle to unequal portions of the benefits and burdens. Egalitarianism For a just distribution each member of society should get completely equal shares of the burdens and benefits. Egalitarian usually contend that there are no relevant differences among the members of society to justify unequal treatment. Therefore, a just distribution according to an egalitarian is one in which every member of society is given exactly equal shares of society's benefits and burdens. The argument for this view depends on the notion that all human beings are equal (in some fundamental respect) and that in recognition of this they ought to be accorded equal shares of society's burdens and benefits.[2] Socialism (Distribution Based on Needs and Abilities) (The Theory, not the Political Party) Burdens and benefits should be distributed on the basis of abilities and needs. Or more specifically, the position claims that work burdens should be distributed on the basis of abilities and benefits should be distributed on the basis of need. On this view, the just way of distributing the benefits and burdens of society is bases on the needs and the abilities of the members of that society. As Marx put it, "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his need.[3]" Further, the benefits produced by such an arrangement should be distributed so as to maximize the welfare of the society, aimed first at meeting the “basic biological needs” of the members of society, then other “non-basic needs” on until meeting the “luxury wants.”
responsible for their degree of success the more sense it makes to say they deserve more. Conversely, the less responsible you think people are for the degree of success or failure, the less you think the deserve more or deserve less proportional to their individual contributions. Libertarianism (Distribution Based on Freedom) (The Theory, not the Political Party) The just distribution is whatever distribution results from free exchange. They take themselves to be heirs to philosopher Immanuel Kant. No particular distribution can be said to be just or unjust apart from the free choices individual makes (Note the anti-consequentialist, intentionalist character to the theory- like Kant.). Any distribution of the benefits and burdens of society is just if it resulted from the free choices of the members of that society. It may be stated (albeit awkwardly) as follows: From each according to what he chooses to do (give), to each according to what he makes for himself (perhaps with the contracted aid of others) and what others choose to do for him and choose to give him or what they have been given (under this maxim) and haven't yet expended or transferred. Any distribution that results from an attempt to impose a certain pattern on society (for instance, imposing equality on everyone or taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots) will therefore be unjust- no matter how noble it may appear since it is coercive. Libertarians take the Kantian notion that coercion is wrong and run with it. They seem committed to the idea that coercion is the ONLY intrinsically wrong action. The only thing that could make a distribution unjust is that it resulted from coercive practices. (And the only thing that could make a distribution just is that it resulted from free exchanges.) Note: the idea of “deserving” has dropped away here. LeBron James doesn’t deserve the money he has. Rather, he is entitled to it only because people have freely given it to him. Libertarians have no “target” distribution in mind (as the previous theories do) and are wary of any such utopian targets. Often the only way to arrive at such targets is through the coercive re- distribution of wealth, unjustly taking the justly acquired goods of one in order to distribute them to some other. This is why they object to taxation for social spending programs (health care, welfare, the NEA, etc.). All taxation is a coercive use of government power. (Notice the I.R.S. is not simply suggesting that you contribute, but threatening with fines and prison). While taxation for the military, police and legal system is a necessary evil to safeguard our freedom, and thus a just activity of government, taxation for social welfare programs has no such justification. When governments do so they exceed their just charter and abuse their power.
Closely related to Libertarianism are the Notions of Negative and Positive Rights, and Contractualism. Negative Right: A right, the observance of which requires only that others to not interfere with the holder. A “freedom from.” Consider the constitutional right to property. This does NOT mean that the government/society is obligated to provide you with property; it only means that if you already have property, the government has to see that you are left alone. Similarly with the freedom of religion (Government does see that everyone has one.) and freedom of press (Government does see that every citizen has a newspaper in which to publish his or her views.). Notice I can respect each and every one of your negative rights simply by staying at home and leaving you alone. Positive Rights: A right, the observance of which requires that others provide a good or service for the holder. An “entitlement.” Some claim that we have a right to healthcare and by this they do not merely mean that we have a negative right to healthcare, that we may pursue healthcare free from interference. But rather they mean that each of us is entitled to healthcare (of some minimal standard) and that if society fails to provide any of us with healthcare then the rights of this person have been violated. Contractualism: The ethical position which claims that one has no positive moral obligations to anyone else other than those one freely accepts. (I do not OWE anyone anything.) All morality requires is that I don’t actively harm anyone; I am not morally obligated to help anyone out unless I choose to do so- (e.g. I agree to watch you purse while you go on the rollercoaster.). Whether there are such things as “positive rights” is a matter of debate. The Contractualist seems to believe that they are none. But even among those who reject Contractualism, the lists of alleged positive rights vary. It is worth noting that the more recently drafted “Bills of Rights” and national constitutions are, the more likely they are to contain positive rights. The UN’s Declaration of Human Rights contains many. (See article 24 for instance.) If there ARE positive rights, say to healthcare, than a libertarian might be persuaded that taxation for Medicare, like taxation for the military, is also a necessary evil required to safeguard the rights of the citizens and therefore justified. Justice as Fairness John Rawls’ theory is based on the assumption before we state what principles of distribution are just, we must first devise a fair method for choosing principles. Once a fair method for choosing the principles is devised, the principles we choose using this method should serve as our own principles of distributive justice.
“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others and render their h appiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.”[6] Accordingly, Smith approved of individual freely pursuing their “self-interest” since it was paradoxically "other directed." Smith did not view compassion for others and individual self- interest as contradictory, but rather as complementary. “Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only,”[7] Charity, government regulated and enforced or not, cannot sustain a vibrant and innovative economy or system of wealth distribution. Self-interested economic individualism (capitalism) can, he believed. Said Smith: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” (ibid.). A final word about Private Property: Most who defend the notion of private property being a right suggest that value is often created through work. Since I have the "right" to self determination and to my body, I can do with it what I like (within certain limitations) and no one else has that right. Likewise my labor is "mine" and the increased value created by my labor is mine. I therefore have a right to that value and no one else does. All this to say that defender of private property say that individuals have the right to determine what to do with their bodies, their labor and the fruits of their labor. In short, I own what a make and I am free to keep it, sell it, trade it or give it away. These are the free exchanges within the capitalist system However, note that Marx would critique this by pointing out that the factory owner is not the producer of the value, but rather the factory workers. The owner of the factory can lay little claim on the value produced by the factory workers. That value belongs mostly, if not entirely, to the laborers, Marx would claim. Critics of Marx would claim that the owner invested risk capital for there to be a factory at all. They would also point out that the laborers negotiated to work for a agreed upon compensation package.
