The Idea of Justice

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