Jon Rawls and Theories of Distributive Justice

[a_majoor]

This theory seems to be the underpining of so much of what passes for political discourse today: PC speech codes, "equity" legislation and all the other things that make your head spin. The fact that it is written in such a way as to be almost unintelligable makes it hard to refute in any formal academic way (at least for me, the common sense test tells me its wrong...........). Luckily the counterpoint does the heavy lifting.

http://tim.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/3/13/2802419.html

Jon Rawls and Theories of Distributive Justice
by Tim on Tue 13 Mar 2007 02:50 PM EDT  |  Permanent Link
The following is a short explanation of Jon Rawls' basic concepts of justice produced by a classmate of mine Gideon Christian. My comments on Rawls' theories follow below. Gideon explainserhaps the most important principle propounded in the past 35 years has been the Difference Principle. It is the second of two principles proposed by Rawls in his A Theory of Justice and they are:     

1. Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of  equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal political liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value.   

2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:       
(a) They are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and
(b), they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. 

As can be seen, the second principle (the Difference Principle) is the departure from strict equality, as it tolerates inequalities that arise if and only if they benefit the least advantaged members. The conception of Rawls’s two principles and their justification come from an analytical tool term by Rawls as the original position. This  original position is a social contract fiction created by Rawls that imagines persons coming together to agree upon principles of justice to guide their society. In order to be just, this imaginary congress  must be fair.Rawls terms this “justice as fairness”. What this means is that, like Themis, all the participating persons are blindfolded with what he calls a “veil of ignorance”. The veil prevents any of the persons from knowing their personal attributes, and therefore when hey come together to determine principles of justice they are not biased and will not attempt to propose a principle for their own gain at the expense of someone else (because in that situation they will not know if they will be the winner or the loser fromsuch a principle). Rationally therefore, the persons veiled in ignorance will choose the principles that will most benefit the least-advantaged persons (because this will guarantee them a certain allowance of benefits – Rawls terms this the maximin rule). The original position  is not actually static; it must undergo continual revision as it is checked against actual society; society and the original position change in response to each other until they reach what Rawls calls “reflective equilibrium”, a state of affairs where things can be said (by reference to the original position) to be just.  Rawls’s two principles have attracted a number of criticisms including those that say that inequalities in wealth produced by the difference principle will always produce inequalities in basic liberty (hence setting principle 2 at odds with principle 1), and that the difference principle views natural talents of individuals as a collective asset to be exploited.
____________________________________________________________________________

Denton responds: I find these kinds of reflections engaged in by some legal theorists to be completely mad. Not just ridiculous, but mad. The distribution of which Rawls speaks cannot be realized short of the most comprehensive tyranny. And he never speaks of the real distributive injustice, which is cognitive ability. No one actually is proposing to level intelligence, are they? Are we proposing that everyone have an IQ of 100? Or 110?How many IQ points are you ready to have knocked off your mind to realize the goal of equality? Zero? I thought so. There was a great line in the movie Sniper (?), which is set in war-torn Stalingrad. After having lost a girl to Zaitsev's charms, the Communist intellectual, who has been tasked with writing propaganda about the famous Russian sniper, realizes that there will never be a society without envy, that even in the most egalitarian of social distributions there will always be something to envy: love, the favours of a woman, beauty, anything. He is talking to Zaitsev in a shelter while Zaitsev is waiting with great patience for the German sniper to reveal himself. With the realization of the futility of communism - that equal distributions of wealth will somehow change human nature - he shows himself. Bullet through the head from the German sniper. Zaitsev waits until the German sniper steps out a drills him. Those who think about equality need to consider how infinitesimal a difference can give rise to that most powerful of human emotions, envy. Envy is a very dangerous force that keeps entire societies from succeeding, because the success of the driving person is intolerable to those less successful. (Remember the joke about the Russian peasant who is told he can have half of anything he wishes upon his neighbour, and he says: "Make him blind in both eyes"?. This is a deep clue to what holds Russia back). It is only the caprice of luck that makes social inequality endurable. If you lived in the perfect scheme of distribution, your place in the scheme of things would be determined by your merits, character, and work, and would be unaffected by whether you were born into a rich family, tribe or nation, and got along well with your parents and uncles who favoured you to rise in society. Conversely, your low place on the social hierarchy would not be a matter of luck, but would be the reflection of innate deficiencies. How intolerable! A meritocracy would be the most completely intolerant and intolerable form of society, because its snobbery and exclusionary practices would be about substance rather than accidents of appearance, class, fashion or birth. The optimists keep pounding away on the virtues of energy, persistence, hard work and determination. I agree with them. But the backdrop against which this makes sense is a world ruled by chance: drought, depression, war, sickness, accident, and the vastly unequal distribution of beauty and intelligence. We all know this. Why don't legal theorists talk about it more?

 

[R.O.S]

veil of ignorance is an awesome concept... Rawls also goes further in its explanation in the article of "An Egalitarian Theory of Justice". To explain in brief to people who do not understand the concept... the veil of ignorance is a theory on the original position. This means by practicing this theory you put yourself where you do not know yourself. By being in the original position you do not know if you are handicapped, old, or young, smart, strong, which race you are... you only know you are human. This is a way Rawls believes you should make a just society, because you will try to make everyone fairly treated (does not mean equally... not a socialistic theory... but fairly). So then you will agree to taxes because welfare to less fortunate must be given and roads must be built.... but the taxes will not be so high as to deprive unnecessarily people from their work... so in this society there will be rich, but not without giving back to the community. YOu will also allow equal treatment of races and gender because you do not know it you are a women or man or balck or white under the veil. This whole consept is made to create a JUST society, not a perfect one.

 

[Brad Sallows]

When I first encountered "veil of ignorance" I realized it to be an approximation of "presumption of envy".  The resulting society is effectively based on the principle of worrying that someone else might have more of something, instead of accepting the inequities of the natural universe as they are and doing the best one can as one is while respecting the abilities and limitations of others and their untrammelled sovereignty over themselves.  Also, a direct conflation of justice and fairness is unhelpful.  Justice is simply what one deserves: ill fortune for ill deeds; good fortune for worthwhile endeavours.  Distributive justice is limited by what the human body can endure without dying.  An ugly, socially awkward, clumsy person of indifferent intelligence may somehow have a talent for making money, but not for fulfilling desires of companionship, or earning the acclamation of fans of sports or the arts, or achieving academic notoriety.  So should we take from him the fruits of the one gift he has simply because we can do it without disfiguring or killing him?

 

[R.O.S]

Your presumption is, if I am correct, let limited human interference with one another. THis therefore is a popular idea of freedom... but there are two types of freedoms. There is what you are free from, and what you are free for. Rawls theory is not one of envy... envy is basing your judgment on spite. But you cannot have spite if you are in the original position, as you do not feel, you judgment is that of reason and not emotion. So as I stated you would allow people to be rich (because maybe you will be) but you will help the poor (because maybe you are or will become, like your business fails). Why do some people believe that people in wheel chairs should have ramps? would you call this envy, or just a reasonable accomodation? Again this is not a marxist theory, but it is not a full blown capitalistic either... its the middle ground of reason.

 

[warspite]

veil of ignorance is an awesome concept...

Now I'm going to assume you believe in this theory, or at least see it in a positive light.

For my clarifacation, do you see this as an realistic scenario that could work? Cause if not I'm not going to trouble you with a long tirade about how this is completely impossible in every way.

 

[a_majoor]

The "veil of ignorence is an impossible concept; if you do not have self knowledge you literally don't exist!

Imperfect people applying Justice is what we have, and although imperfect it is better than imperfect people applying subjective judgements, which history shows devolves into tyranny very quickly (Read how fast the French Revolution devolved from Liberty, Fraterety, Equality to "the Terror", or the history of the BolsheviK revolution, or Maoist China to see what I mean).

 

[R.O.S]

completely impossible in every way.

How is this so if I already stated that items such as ramps for people in wheelchairs or parking spots for handicapped individuals use this theory indirectly. Dont just read the original Rawls quote stated at the beginning of this thread. You must read much more about this theory to understand it... not just a paragraph. The concept is about political obligation to others in the community. Through the theory you look deeper at all (or as most as possible) scenerios of life. It also tries to explain why you would obey the law. People who follow Nozick (another philospher) will believe you follow the law because you fear punishment, and that all business interections are a game (if you can cheat, do it). Rawls theory explains that in a just society we follow laws because they are reasonable... and before you argue otherwise think hard about this. Would you rape if there were no police? would you steal from charity if no one looked? Of course some people would, but these are people who follow Nozick... while people who follow the Rawls concept will find following such laws "reasonable".

I do agree that some or sadly sometimes many are driven by selfless wants. That is why Rawls doesn't just say make a just society, but to try to see the world through all eyes (under the veil pf ingnorance you analyze the world through a poor mans position as well as a rich mans). There is "TRY" not to be biased in decision. To those that say again this is impossible in everyway, then why do we believe in court system (or at least try to)... because we think the judge will not just analyze the crime, but the reasons for the crime and give a reasonable sentence according to the scenerio. If you say there is an impossibility in everyway for the concept of Rawls, why do we then have more then one possible sentence apart form guilty or not guilty? Why do we give to charity? Why do we tax people to give physically handicapped people abilities to be more moble? Why do we ever think about others it is impossible, if the Rawls theory is impossible in everyway? The theory is made for people to strive to, who want the be just  and fair. To give them a better base on which to govern themselves and actions within society, for the benefit of themselves without forgetting about others.

 

[a_majoor]

Our culture is founded not only on the idea of self knowledge, but achievement, as the Myceneans and Greeks knew:

http://library.thinkquest.org/19300/data/homersgreece.htm

Arete

The concept of arete, or excellence, was one of the Homeric Age's most important contributions to Western culture; in fact, in many ways the Iliad and the Odyssey are actually paeans to arete. In Homer, even nonhuman things such as noble horses and powerful gods may possess arete; an ordinary person does not possess arete; and an aristos, or noble, who becomes a slave loses half is arete. Werner Jaeger observes that the nobility is the prime mover in forming a nation's culture, and that the aristoi, or "the best," are responsible for the creation of a definite idea of human perfection, an ideal toward which they are constantly educated. Arete became the "quintessence of early aristocratic education," and thereafter the dominant concept in all Greek education and culture; it has remained with us as an educational ideal ever since.

It was not possible to separate leadership from arete, the Greeks believed, because unusual or exceptional prowess was a natural manifestation of leadership. Since each man was ranked in accordance with his ability, arete became an ideal of self-fulfillment or self-realization in terms of human excellence. A noble's arete, in Homer, is specifically indicated by his skill and prowess as a soldier in war, and as an athlete in peace. War provides the occasion for the display of arete and the winning of kleos, or glory. This is one of the most important understandings of why many Greeks went to Troy (most specifically Achilles). The aristoi compete among themselves "always to be the best and to be superior to others." In his personal conduct, the Homeric hero possess aidos, or a sense of duty. An affront to this sense of duty is known as nemesis, and is aroused in the hearts of others when aidos is slighted.

Finally, the meaning of arete was enlarged to signify the union of nobility of action and nobility of mind, and an accompanying imperative of honor. Thus, Phoenix, the counsuler and tutor of great Achilles, in Book IV of the Iliad, reminds the great warrior of the aristocratic ideal of arete, which he was charged to impart to him, to make him a speaker of words and a doer of deeds. Ultimately, arete means intellectual as well as physical excellence, the realization of a man's total potential. There are, however, more foundations to society, as the Boeotian peasant Hesiod was to point out in his poem Work and Days. One is ergon, or good hard work. Without it, no society can exist. In both Theogony, a poem describing the origin and genealogy of the gods, and in Work and Days, Hesiod introduces the question that will become central for Solon, the Greek tragedians, and the Athenian philosophers - the problem of dike, or justice. In his attempt to organize the Greek pantheon into understandable catergories - henotheistically, with one supreme deity among the number of deities - Hesiod sees Zeus as the protector of justice, both on the human and divine levels, through his divine daughter Dike, or Justice, who watches over the deeds of men and reports them directly when justice is violated. A city that practices justice is assured prosperity, whereas the city that practices injustice reaps the fruits thereof and the vengeance of Zeus. So important was the Greek idea of dike, that eventually it would become an economic and political, as well as moral, issue.

 

[Reccesoldier]

The underlying concept of justice is not that we are all some sort generic everyman but that we as human beings for the most part understand that the whole of society is greater than the sum of its parts.  We do not accept ramps and handicapped parking on the premise that we could be handicapped ourselves but on the premise that it is better for the whole to make allowances for the few than it is for the few to suffer and make allowances for the rest.  However, this realization is tempered by something that Rawls does not consider in his theory, common sense. 

Common sense dictates that if of the population only 1 in 100,000 is blind, there is no reason to  have all products labeled in brail.  To take Rawls' to his ridiculous conclusion, any nation trying to implement this theory would suffer economic collapse as each and every eventuality would necessarily have to be accounted, legislated and accommodated for.  Furthermore any individual trying to rationalize every action would be paralyzed as each action we undertake is based and enabled by our individual ability, need, desire and prejudice.

True, absolute equality is a fable and not desirable in the least.  Without inequality we would all be reduced to the lowest common denominator.  The human need to excel, to strive for perfection and grandeur would be seen as a weakness as evil, unfair, elitist, immoral, and in the end we would cease to accomplish anything new, build anything worthwhile or dream at all.

 

[R.O.S]

I think some of you are misunderstanding me. The theory is not based that you make just laws because YOU may become less fortunate. The original position is based on the principle that you try to see life through others eyes (as best you can) and try to treat everyone fairly, and not make regulations that will be discriminatory or unreasonably benefiting/hurting some group. And again you cannot accommodate everyone to the fullest (its not a communistic theory or egenic theory either). Reccesoldier, for people who are blind we will try to accommodate them with reason (elevators and government buildings for example, or think about in Toronto downtown where there are beeping crosswalks to notify the blind when to cross).  The theory is not to make sure that everyone has an equal chance at living life, but that everyone has a chance to be treated fairly within society. And no a_majoor, not all society is founded on selfish intentions. There are people who believe and strive towards something greater then themselves, even if it may harm them. 

BTW, Reccesoldier common sense is only relative to time and space and is unable to evolve. What may be common sense to you, will not be to someone somewhere else, and especially in a different time. It was once common sense to have slaves once (as that is how God made the universe, and this was at that time common sense, which you do not question), it was common sense to have women as second class once, it was common sense to send young children to factories…. And some parts of the world it is still common sense. You can live life with just common sense, but remember your common sense it culturally induced, and thus not applicable to building a base for the future.

 

[warspite]

I think some of you are misunderstanding me. The theory is not based that you make just laws because YOU may become less fortunate. The original position is based on the principle that you try to see life through others eyes (as best you can) and try to treat everyone fairly, and not make regulations that will be discriminatory or unreasonably benefiting/hurting some group. And again you cannot accommodate everyone to the fullest (its not a communistic theory or egenic theory either). Reccesoldier, for people who are blind we will try to accommodate them with reason (elevators and government buildings for example, or think about in Toronto downtown where there are beeping crosswalks to notify the blind when to cross).  The theory is not to make sure that everyone has an equal chance at living life, but that everyone has a chance to be treated fairly within society. And no a_majoor, not all society is founded on selfish intentions. There are people who believe and strive towards something greater then themselves, even if it may harm them. 

Isn't that what our society us today?

And no a_majoor, not all society is founded on selfish intentions. .

Most of our socety is based on selfish intentions. the british empire, which was the source of many freedoms we enjoy today, was, for example, founded in ordero generate wealth..

There are people who believe and strive towards something greater then themselves, even if it may harm them

And these people are usually the first to be killed when society breaks down, sorry to say it but there is a lot of scum out there who would like more than one serving of Mrs Charities (who has been serving soup selflessly to the poor for 50 years) soup, and wouldn't even think of disposing of her for an extra meal.

 

[Reccesoldier]

The original position is based on the principle that you try to see life through others eyes (as best you can) and try to treat everyone fairly, and not make regulations that will be discriminatory or unreasonably benefiting/hurting some group.

Really? Where is the fairness in the redistribution of wealth to those who have not earned it.  Is the work of the diligent to become the benefit of the idle?  Should my intellect, my determination and my work ethic benefit everyone equally so that the indolent, lazy and ignorant can live in Utopian b]fairness[/b]?

but that everyone has a chance to be treated fairly within society.

Define fairly... Oh and be sure that your definition of that fairness is in no way discriminatory or unreasonably benefiting/hurting some group.

To get back to this can of worms how can any ideology that states that discrimination in favor of the discriminated is allowable claim to be free of discrimination.  How long do you think it would take till the discriminated become the discriminators?  I'd say less than a generation.  12 years tops.

BTW, Reccesoldier common sense is only relative to time and space and is unable to evolve. What may be common sense to you, will not be to someone somewhere else, and especially in a different time. It was once common sense to have slaves once (as that is how God made the universe, and this was at that time common sense, which you do not question), it was common sense to have women as second class once, it was common sense to send young children to factories…. And some parts of the world it is still common sense. You can live life with just common sense, but remember your common sense it culturally induced, and thus not applicable to building a base for the future.

Wrong on all counts.  you have demonstrated with your examples that Common Sense does indeed evolve. 

As with all Utopian ideologies this one discounts the current human condition, human nature and, yes sadly, common sense too.

 

[warspite]

As with all Utopian ideologies this one discounts the current human condition, human nature and, yes sadly, common sense too.

+1

 

[a_majoor]

I And no a_majoor, not all society is founded on selfish intentions. There are people who believe and strive towards something greater then themselves, even if it may harm them. 

The vast majority of people strive to achieve their own ends, and any political theory which does not recognize this is therefore based on a false premise. Historical self check: which is the most common type of national leader: Ghandi or Stalin?

Adam Smith put this best when he told us we are not getting bread at the supermarket because the baker is such a great guy, but because this interaction best satisfies the wants and needs of both the baker and the buyer.