John Rawls' Theory of Justice - Democratic Equality

[integratedvelocity]

The two principles of democratic equality deal with liberty and equality, which is broken down into equal opportunity and what Rawls terms the “difference principle.” Rawls argues for basic liberties that are equal for all. Included among these liberties are political liberty, freedom of speech, assembly, conscience, and thought, integrity of the person, the right to personal property, and freedom from unlawful arrest and seizure. However, these liberties are malleable, allowing some to be compromised in order to attain the greatest total liberty. The second principle specifies how inequalities ought to be spread throughout society. The first part states that they should be arranged to everyone’s advantage, and the second, that the positions to which inequalities are attached are open to all, in other words, equally open. Rawls further breaks down the second principle into several possible meanings, determined by the interpretation of the phrases “everyone’s advantage” and “equally open.” The first of these phrases can be considered to mean either equality as careers open to talents or as fair opportunity. The second is similarly understood in terms of efficiency or alternatively, the difference principle. This principle states that institutions should be chosen in order to ensure that only inequalities that work for the benefit of the least advantaged persist in society. In other words, an individual may only be better off than others if his or her superior position results in the improvement in the status of the worst-off members of society.

The application of the first principle is straightforward, needing little further elaboration. It is important, however, to note that the liberties listed may not be impinged upon by the second principle, regardless of the possible benefits of such action. Only when they come into conflict may they be altered, and even then, they must still remain equal for all members of society. The second principle is somewhat more complex. Everything must be distributed in equally unless an unequal distribution is to everyone’s advantage. This is not utilitarian, since it is nonaggregative, taking into consideration the status of individuals rather than the overall utility of a society. The second principle does not allow for resources to be distributed in such a way as to maximize the total resources. Instead, they should be distributed to raise the worst-off to the highest level possible, without decreasing the well-being of the remainder of society.

This is lifted from one of my papers and is a fairly good (IMO) summary of Rawls' democratic equality. The only thing I will add now is that Rawls wants to correct morally arbitrary inequalities, whether resulting from social institutions or natural ability. Since I didn't deserve my vastly superior intelligence, I don't deserve the benefits I gain from it ;)

What do you all think about this? Is there something wrong with distributing resources in a way that is most beneficial to the least advantaged, as opposed to a utilitarian distribution or other schemes?

[Rudy]

What do you all think about this? Is there something wrong with distributing resources in a way that is most beneficial to the least advantaged, as opposed to a utilitarian distribution or other schemes?

Yes, there's something very wrong with the entire thing. No one deserves to be given anything for simply existing. The whole thing is based on an unsupportable premise.

[integratedvelocity]

I personally agree with you, but existence is also morally arbitrary, just as the quality of that existence is to a large extent. In the end, how do you decide which morally arbitrary characteristics to take into account?

[RBM]

Yes, there's something very wrong with the entire thing. No one deserves to be given anything for simply existing. The whole thing is based on an unsupportable premise.

Where/how is the line of Greed drawn ?

[maxpot46]

Hoppe addresses Rawls in his introduction (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) to Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty. Below is the pertinent excerpt:
When political philosophy finally made a comeback in the early 1970s, in the wake of John Rawls and his Theory of Justice,[5] the recognition of scarcity as a fundamental human condition and of private property and private property rights as a device for coordinating the actions of individuals constrained by scarcity was conspicuously absent. Neither "property" nor "scarcity" appeared in Rawls's elaborate index, for instance, while "equality" had several dozen entries.

In fact, Rawls, to whom the philosophy profession has in the meantime accorded the rank of the premier ethicist of our age, was the prime example of someone completely uninterested in what a human ethic must accomplish: that is, to answer the question of what I am permitted to do right now and here, given that I cannot not act as long as I am alive and awake and the means or goods which I must employ in order to do so are always scarce, such that there may be interpersonal conflicts regarding their use. Instead of answering this question, Rawls addressed an altogether different one: what rules would be agreed upon as "just" or "fair" by "parties situated behind a veil of ignorance"? Obviously, the answer to this question depends crucially on the description of the "original position" of "parties behind a veil of ignorance." How, then, was this situation defined? According to Rawls, behind the veil of ignorance "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like … It is taken for granted, however, that they know the general facts about human society. They understand political affairs and the principles of economic theory; they know the basis of social organization and the laws of human psychology."[6]

While one would think that scarcity ranks among the general facts of society and economic theory, Rawls's parties, who supposedly knew about scarcity were themselves strangely unaffected by this condition. In Rawls's construction of the "original position," there was no recognition of the fact that scarcity must be assumed to exist even here. Even in deliberating behind a veil of ignorance, one must still make use of scarce means — at least one's physical body and its standing room, i.e., labor and land. Even before beginning any ethical deliberation then, in order to make them possible, private or exclusive property in bodies and a principle regarding the private or exclusive appropriation of standing room must already be presupposed. In distinct contrast to this general fact of human nature, Rawls's moral "parties" were unconstrained by scarcities of any kind and hence did not qualify as actual humans but as free-floating wraiths or disembodied somnambulists.

Such beings, Rawls concluded, cannot but "acknowledge as the first principle of justice one requiring an equal distribution (of all resources). Indeed, this principle is so obvious that we would expect it to occur to anyone immediately."[7] True; for if it is assumed that "moral parties" are not human actors but disembodied entities, the notion of private property must indeed appear strange. As Rawls admitted with captivating frankness, he had simply "define[d] the original position so that we get the desired result."[8] Rawls's imaginary parties had no resemblance whatsoever with human beings but were epistemological somnambulists; accordingly, his socialist-egalitarian theory of justice does not qualify as a human ethic, but something else entirely.

If anything useful could be found in Rawls in particular and contemporary political philosophy in general, it was only the continued recognition of the age-old universalization principle contained in the so-called Golden Rule as well as in the Kantian Categorical Imperative: that all rules aspiring to the rank of just rules must be general rules, applicable and valid for everyone without exception.

[JeffersonFawkes]

Where/how is the line of Greed drawn ?

If one will not be rewarded for talent, than why should one go after it in any serious manner? This type of a direction leans more closely to even punishing people whose family has worked hard for them, or has built themselves up from scratch on the mere basis that someone else was born. If we are not entitled to the money we have worked for, than what is the point of working for it? Especially if the money is just going to be given to those who have done nothing to earn it. Will the hard-workers who actually do earn their money consent to having the hours of their lives sacrificed to the cult of equality. Now if you would rather convince the workers to give their money voluntarily than that is one thing, but to make demands of money that you have not earned is looting.

Imagine if the good samaritan had robbed the next person to come down the street, and used that money to pay for the already hurt mans wounds.

[RBM]

If one will not be rewarded for talent, than why should one go after it in any serious manner? This type of a direction leans more closely to even punishing people whose family has worked hard for them, or has built themselves up from scratch on the mere basis that someone else was born. If we are not entitled to the money we have worked for, than what is the point of working for it? Especially if the money is just going to be given to those who have done nothing to earn it. Will the hard-workers who actually do earn their money consent to having the hours of their lives sacrificed to the cult of equality. Now if you would rather convince the workers to give their money voluntarily than that is one thing, but to make demands of money that you have not earned is looting.

Imagine if the good samaritan had robbed the next person to come down the street, and used that money to pay for the already hurt mans wounds.

Another words there is no such thing as "greed" ?

[Tenacious B]

The issue of existing scarcity shows that actualizing Rawls' 2nd principle will violate the 1st.

The problem with equality is that people are not equal.

[PunkinA]

Since I didn't deserve my vastly superior intelligence, I don't deserve the benefits I gain from it ;)

What do you all think about this? Is there something wrong with distributing resources in a way that is most beneficial to the least advantaged, as opposed to a utilitarian distribution or other schemes?

I think your use of the word deserve assumes an underlying morality. To draw a conclusion based on your statement some additional ethical claim must be assumed.

Statements of the sort:
"There is something wrong with ..."
"A person should ..."
"It is not fair that ..."

All assume some true ethic.

My answer to you is we as humans cannot know that some ethic actually exists. The many-words conclusion is that an ethic does not univerally exist. As a result, statements about the wrongness of a behavior are meaningless.

An intelligent person may act to increase his total wealth. There is no wrongness expressed here. On the contrary though, "An impoverished person may act to support laws that forcfully redistribute wealth." also expresses no wrongness. The fact that behaviors based on these statements brings the expressed outcome of the universe into conflict, does not indicate a wrongness. Conflict is a state of nature. The lion consuming the wildebeast is not wrong. The wildebeast acting as a herd is also not wrong. Individuals act in accordance with their own goals and values.

I may value a sense that each individual's access to resources at a survival level is preserved, assuming a sufficient amount of resources exist to provide for each individual.

You may value a sense that each individual has an ability to possess resources, and independtly of the needs or desires of other individuals, have an ability to control the outcome of my possessed resourses.

Each of these can be stated to express a moral outcome, but note that the moral outcome always occurs after the statement "I value..." or "I value a sense..." As such, any ethical claim to "right" or "wrong" occurs after a value judgement. Within the scope of your values, my behaviors may conflict with your moral view, and vice versa. The empirical reality is that my values are different from yours. So you will tend to view my conclusions as immoral, or wrong. So you want to be a lion? There is nothing wrong with that.

If resources are infinite, and access to resources are infinite no conflict occurs. Both values could be pursued at no inconvenience to the other. Now given the reality that resources are scarce, may bring our morals into conflict.

When

(the total amount of resources desired as wealth by all individuals) +
(the total amount of resources required to give access to the basic survival level of all individuals) > (the total amount of resources available in the environment)

a conflict occurs.

Both values cannot be simultaneously fullfilled. Which moral one uses to resolve the conflict results in a different set of morals, instructing the use of the first values. Most indiviuals operate in some balance between the two values. Few of us are purely ideological socialists or ideological capitalists. We balance. To balance the values, each of us informally performs a personal calculus to determine how much of each value will constitute a makeup of an ideal system. When the system develops conflict, some part of each value will be comprimised to ensure the value of the balance above each specific value. Utilitarianism is but one expressed solution to this balanced equation. Still, the Utilitarian Ideal is as subjectively valued as any other value in the system.

Given that neither you nor I am an absolute authority on what constitutes "right" or "wrong" I propose we both state our values clearly, and acknowledge each others individual values. Then perhaps we can come to an agreement on some mutual value which balances compromises demanded of each of us. Then, together we can cooperate to mutually optimize our agreed upon value. On the other hand, if you will continue to ignore my own personal preferences for the system as a whole, if you continue to label my values as "wrong", I will be forced to operate in pursuit of my own personal values, indepently of your ethical formulae. Our behaviors will always have potential for conflict. Without admitting the possibility of my ideal state, your ideal state cannot exist.

[Krazy P]

Wow - I am stunned to read a discussion of Rawls anywhere - much less in this forum.

I first read Rawls right after it was published in the 70s.

Clinton's agenda was essentially based on Rawls ideas, in case you were interested.

My opinion is not a philosophical one, but a practical one. It has been tried and doesn't work.

The problem is the hard-wiring of the species. So, my view is accept the hard-wiring and develop and build on systems that increase the overall standard of living and accept the inequalities.

Did you ever notice, for example, that rich people always get the best health care? And have throughout history? Regardless of the system? Kidney transplants are a good example. From Japanese crime lords to rock stars - who gets the kidneys?

I like to use health care as an example of inequality and scarcity.