Political Justice Midterm Analysis

Political Justice Midterm Exam
Nicole Hughes

In 2010, a Tennessee house fire sparked debate across the country. The house was left to burn while the firefighters watched, because the homeowners, the Cranicks, lived in a rural area that was not included in fire service, and they had not paid their subscription fee to receive the help. In this paper, I will take three theories of justice; the Utilitarian theory, the Rawlsian theory, and the Libertarian theory, and apply it to this unique situation while conjecturing how each theory would respond and suggest alternatives for the future. It seems clear that those Tennessee firefighters were just following the system and instructions from their authorities, but was it moral, or just? Let’s examine

these different justice theory perspectives to see.
The Utilitarian theory looks at actions being right if it benefits the greatest number of people in society. This theory grounds itself in whether or not a decision will cause pleasurable or painful consequences for the individual or group of people involved. Weighing these factors in a cost benefit analysis of what will produce the greatest good, will create utility. Evaluating the fire situation, I think there would be a couple ways to look at it from a Utilitarian standpoint.
According to Bentham’s system of quantifying pains and pleasures, we would have to rate the level of pain and pleasure in each of his seven areas of criteria.

The first four areas (intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity) we would score according to how much pain/pleasure would be inflicted directly on the individual family. How much pain would be caused losing all their personal possessions and pets? How long would this pain endure? What is the certainty that his house will burn without fire service? How quickly? His last three areas; fecundity, purity, and extent would be relating to the rest of the members of the community. What is the likelihood that this would happen again? Would others not pay their bills if the Cranick’s has received fire service? How many people in the area would this affect? What is the danger to the rest of society if a house is left to burn? We would tally up to see what would potentially create the greatest amount of happiness for society. The problem with this equation, is that it would be hard to come up with definitive answers, as some of the ratings would be presumptions and subjective. Mill follows Bentham’s principles of Utilitarianism, but takes a slightly different approach. He writes about perfect and imperfect obligations. In this case, the house fire would be considered an imperfect duty. While it was probably morally right for the firefighters to put out the fire when they were already at the house with their equipment, it

was an “imperfect duty” and they had no obligation by law to put it out because the subscription was not paid.
As far as this news story goes, I think for the Utilitarian, there would have never been a decision to make here.

They would have added a tax to the community so the choice was already made. This is similar to the government requiring all drivers to have a minimum amount of car insurance to cover some costs if involved in an accident. I think the government has a more prominent role in the Utilitarian society, and so they can resolve what will provide the maximum amount of pleasure and minimal pain for the people. Because a house fire could put paid subscribers at risk as well, I think moving forward they might recommend to add the fee into the homeowner’s association fee, or requiring it somehow through their car

insurance.
Rawls theory of justice defines justice as fairness with an emphasis on liberty. The first principle he pens is to set up a society working through "the veil of ignorance". This would be designed in a way that everyone would have equal access to basic and economic rights or needs. His second principle emphasizes that despite inequalities, the government should help those at a disadvantage for betterment. Everyone will have basic rights and as society succeeds everyone will get an equal distribution of benefits. By the basis of his theory, Rawls would agree that it was the people's right to be protected from the emergency situation, and that all members of society should have equal, not varying degrees, of fire protection. Rawls would maintain that the people that could not pay because they are disadvantaged should be helped so that they could obtain these rights to service. This is similar to individuals receiving food stamps from the government so that they have basic needs met for food. A Rawlsian might recommend a “request for assistance” box to check off on all the bills sent out for the subscription fees. Also, monthly reminders to make sure that the bill was not missed, or lost in the mail, to confirm that if not received, the homeowner was truly opting out of fire service.
The Libertarian theory promotes justice as a right to liberty and property with the least amount of government intervention or involvement. People advance in society on their own accord, talents, abilities, and initiative. Looking at the Cranick family, I think most libertarians would take the stance that it was their responsibility to pay, and they didn’t so this was the consequence of their action. Basically- you get what you pay for. Some might have thought that Gene Cranick should have been taken up on his offer to pay whatever the cost. Surely, people that don’t buy insurance are still allowed to go in the emergency room. They will just have a hefty bill afterwards. This is similar to people who only buy the minimum car insurance for liability and in an accident, they have no collision coverage to replace their vehicle, and it will have to come out of pocket.
Libertarians would want to prevent this situation by establishing if the people wanted a government funded or private fire department. This conclusion would be different from town to town according to what the people thought best and were willing to pay for, rather than what the government would decide for them.
The justice problem here is whether or not the behavior of those Tennessee firefighters was right, or fair.. Was their treatment to the Cranick family just? When asking a Libertarian, yes, the fire department was acting justly. Gene Cranick had not paid the subscription fee, so he did not receive the service. In a Utilitarian society, if the decision for the subscription had been predetermined as the most beneficial for these rural residents to pay the fee, then I believe they would also say that the fire department was just in their actions. This is challenging to answer because of the different conceptions of this theory. They would need to weigh out if the right to property was violated for this family, or if the fire departments choice would lead to greater utility. Moving forward, they would need see what solution would provide the maximum amount of protection, while minimizing the dangers or risks for the rest of the community. I do not believe this would have been just to the Rawlsian. They would wonder where something had broke in their system. Everyone should receive equal services, and now the community really does need to step in and help the Cranick family who has lost their home, and all their possessions. While each theory of justice has arguable points, intuitive reasoning for justice does not take a systematic approach and is, therefore, hard to come to an unanimous conclusion in this unique scenario.