Rawls v Nozick on inequality & 'social justice'
"[The popular] conception of social justice [is] associated with the work of John Rawls. Rawls suggested that we should
gauge social justice with reference to the social arrangements which
individuals would agree upon were they all in an ‘original position’ in
which none of them knew what their personal attributes would be and all
were ignorant of the place which they would occupy in society. Operating
behind such a ‘veil of ignorance,’ Rawls argued ... that we would
all agree that resources should be shared out equally, except in those
situations where an unequal distribution could be shown to produce
greater benefits for those who are least well-off than they could possibly
enjoy under any other social arrangement (what he called the ‘difference
principle’)...
"But no sooner had Rawls established this argument for equality
than Robert Nozick offered an equally compelling refutation. He
likened Rawls’s ‘original position’ to the situation of a group of
students being asked to agree on the distribution of examination
grades before starting their course. Having no way of knowing how
well they are likely to perform, Nozick accepts that they would
probably all agree to share the same marks. But in reality, they do
not have to make such decisions in ignorance of their own vices
and virtues. Some work hard and revise while others are lazy, and
this would make it grossly unfair to insist they should all be graded
the same. Nozick therefore proposed that we should gauge a just
distribution simply by asking whether people have established a
legitimate right to what they have. If they have worked for what
they’ve got, or if they have received it from somebody else as a
result of a voluntary gift or exchange, then they are entitled to keep
it, end of story."
~ Peter Saunders, from his 2010 monogram 'Beware False Prophets'
[Hat tip
Utopia...]
.
No comments:
Post a Comment