Search

An unprecedented phosphonic acid with a vinylene-bridged fluoroalkyl chain (-C6F12-CH=CH-C6F13) was synthesized and characterized. This compound comprises the perfluorohexyl (C6F13) group, which allows the exclusion of the use and formation of bioaccumulative perfluorooctanoic-acid-related compounds (i.e., compounds containing the (C7F15)C moiety). Self-assembled monolayers (SAMs) of the novel phosphonic acid were formed on indium-tin oxide and stainless steel substrates by solution deposition. The surface properties, formation kinetics, and thermal stabilities of the SAMs were investigated by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, contact angle measurements, and atomic force microscopy. Compared to the SAMs of known fluorinated phosphonic acids containing CnF2n+1 groups (n = 4, 6, 8), the SAM of this novel phosphonic acid bearing the -C6F12-CH=CH-C6F13 group showed a high uniformity, a lower surface energy, and a lower contact angle hysteresis. In addition, the novel phosphonic acid allowed the rapid modification of metal oxide surfaces and imparted a superior thermal stability compared to conventional fluorinated phosphonic acids. Therefore, this phosphonic acid bearing a vinylene-bridged fluoroalkyl chain is a promising candidate for improving both surface modification and environmental properties in comparison with conventional analogs having long perfluoroalkyl chains.

In terms of social and economic cooperation, each individual’s allocation is the ultimate goal, and mutual cooperation, is only a means to attain that outcome. The development of productivity and division of labor will change people from existing in a self-contained, isolated manner toward group-oriented habitation, that is, from being isolated individuals to becoming members of a group. Rawls proposed contemporary social contract theory. He submitted an attractive theory of justice in the distribution of burden and product. However, his ideas are based on the unrealistic assumption of the isolated individual; therefore, his idea of the veil of ignorance and that of unanimous consent in the political field being a must today cannot be upheld. If distributive rules do not treat minority people too harshly and universal suffrage is guaranteed, minor conflict and negotiation become the main elements of the decision-making process, not an abstract quality such as the veil of ignorance. To create a more realistic distributive theory on the basic structure of society, we need to replace the assumption of isolated, independent autonomous individuals as the contracting entity with that of a group-oriented personality and to study interactions among today’s groups and find the new direction of distribution that this will generate.

The core question of this chapter lies in determining the object subject view, or “for whom and for what kind of life,” in modern society. Humans essentially act from an individualistic selfish view and the utilitarian view is an expression of it. Classical contributors placed themselves either on the side of the interests of the majority group (Smith and Marx) or on the side of the weak (Keynes). Rawls focused on the consent of every person in a society, expecting everyone to be satisfied with the difference principle, which allows income differences with the condition of increasing the disadvantaged people’s share at the same time. In contrast, Sen focused on the group of the disabled, arguing for distribution to them being sufficient to enable their capabilities to flourish. Their ideas have much to appeal to us but are not yet fully developed or demonstrated. The true problem in the consideration of distributive rules is the extent to which or the weight by which the selfish and human fellowship elements exist in modern society. In this sense, our next task is to reconsider and improve the existing distributive rules in terms of both “fairness” and “human fellowship” by focusing on the weight and extent of these elements within us today (Further considered in Chap. 9).

Can the profit realized in a free market society be considered proper? Marginal productivity theory explains the actual mechanism used in the market to determine wages. However, it admits that uneven bargaining power gives entrepreneurs the advantage of calculating wages on the basis of the last unit’s contribution to revenue increases, which is then retroactively applied to previous units of labor as well. Clark seems to admit that this process is proper. On the other hand, Samuelson, despite referring to its possibility as a fairness-related problem, leaves it to the realm of politics. When we examine the proper share of employers on the basis of the idea of social net increase by their enterprise, we can conclude that their actual share tends to be larger than it should be. Such a situation is made possible by the overwhelming bargaining power enjoyed by an entrepreneur and their illogical thought to unite two contradictory principles: the average and the marginal. It may also contradict the free contract principle, overriding the free will of workers to realize, and believe in, the propriety of a general standard of distribution, namely, distribution by contribution. To improve this situation raising or maintaining the bargaining power of workers by supporting their unity by labor laws or by supporting their livelihood through social welfare is necessary.

Considering the recent experience of rising land prices; people’s discontent and trial-and-error policies to remedy the situation in Japan; and the land problems at the start of civil society in the UK, it is clear that land ownership is of vital importance. The question of land ownership must be dealt with as a question of equal human rights today. Land distribution should be seen in the realm of fairness as it is related to the original right of human beings to have access to natural resources in civil society. Thus, the question of the fair distribution of land will not remain in its current form but will naturally extend to access to all natural resources. The required future rules will tend to divide the land equally as a first step. However, this will not literally mean the division of land that is already utilized by contemporaries for various purposes, and so feasible measures must be developed flexibly.

The motive of human fellowship is not easy to grasp. But when we consider the present state of social security and social welfare in terms of whether they are properly constructed, this question is quite important because human fellowship and self-interest are two factors/motives that support such efforts. Rawls dealt with the two motives in an inconsistent manner. His analytical method of reflective equilibrium studies self-interest in the process of making social principles and studies human fellowship in terms of the subsequent justification process. However, there is no assurance that the resulting social situations coincide. Sociobiology argues that altruism, a type of human fellowship, does exist but was originally controlled by selfish genes and that this altruism for selfish reasons might develop further into a stage of “nobility” if people come to understand that greater, wider human cooperation will assure the survival of their own genes. Conversely, we may also be able to argue that kind acts and human fellowship have been embedded in humanity from the beginning. Further research is required to verify these views, but either way, in today’s circumstances, where humans seem to experience an unstable life in an era of globalizing, harsher competitiveness in the market economy, both approaches seem to show the necessity of strengthening the supporting elements of the social system, the social security.

This chapter organizes the framework and topics involved in contemplating the factors that regulate the distributive structure, distributive rules, and their modern direction. The following points are raised to constitute such a framework for this book. (1) Human beings cooperate in production to ensure survival. An important condition for cooperation is the existence of rules regarding the distribution of labor burden and products and people’s consent to these rules. (2) An important factor that regulates distributive rules lies in the survival instinct of each individual, i.e., their drive to survive and reproduce. (3) The deciding subject of the distributive rule has changed from the individual to the group, and the decision criterion has changed from compulsory to voluntary agreement. (4) In this process, distributive objects have changed from products to those containing resources. (5) Distributive rules for resources and outcomes are thus moving toward “some degree of equality.” (6) This degree of equality is defined by three factors: changes in the object subject view, changes in deciding what is “fair,” and increasing request for distribution according to need and mutual security.

Education has two kinds of benefits, personal and social, with the former increasing the earning ability of individuals and the latter raising the overall productivity of the society and most of all, growing cooperative ability to create and maintaining peace among human groups, particularly among nations. With the world having experienced two world wars in the 20th century and regional wars thereafter, the ability of education to help create peace announced in the Declaration of 1948 and the Covenant in 1966 is to be regarded as the most important goal of education. This importance lasts for the entire duration of education from primary to higher education. Furthermore, with regard to the personal benefit of higher incomes from higher education, this does not only benefit university graduates but also society as a whole through increases in overall productivity. Thus, examining the private and social benefits, including equity between university graduates and non-graduates, the benefits overwhelmingly accrue to society as a whole. Thus, the cost of higher education should be borne by society through taxes.

In discussing economic activities, asking what kind of value judgments exist rather than asking which personal value judgments, including object subject views, are “correct”, is part of scientific research. Fairness refers to a state (or agreed content) in which a certain rule is agreed upon and followed regardless of whether it is voluntary. To study social institutions and the direction of change in rules’ content, it is necessary to analyze the interests of the individuals involved. In the formation of actual rules, this becomes a need to focus on the interests of common interest groups. However, even when dealing with such questions related to “groups”, because any social group is the outcome of each self-interested individual pursuing that interest, there is no a priori, universal “utilitarian or collective” behavioral motive. (This question is considered further in Chap. 5).