Egalitarianism is False

567 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Characteristics of egalitarianism

Egalitarianism is False

To agree or not to agree with Paul Viminitz? That is the question. Paul Viminitz talks about 6 moral intuitions that “have muddled our thinking about distributive justice”(Artificial Prudence, p13). Viminitz talks about moral intuitions and political arrangements share a similarity of game theory and that “distributive justice is arguably the largest part of morality and politics” (A.P., p13). Egalitarianism is the moral intuition that I will talk about.

Egalitarianism says that every person should have the same level of material

goods and services. This principle is justified on the grounds that people are owed equal respect and that equality in material goods and services is the best way to give effect to this ideal of equal respect. But a few problems are created from this, one of the problems is how to measure these materials and specify them. A way of solving this could be, giving everyone the same of everything in the same amounts (1 car, 2 televisions, 5 kiwis, 1 watermelon, etc) but here we go again another problem is made by this solution because there are many other services and material goods that will make other people better off and at the same time won’t make anybody worse off. I will be happier if I got 6 watermelons because I don’t like kiwis that much while others may prefer 6 kiwis instead of the 1 watermelon. So everybody will for sure want to trade something off in order to get something back they will be better off with. So by distributing the same material goods in equal amounts will make people worse off instead of making them better off materially. So trying to solve this is very problematic.

Another problem that arises from this is that when will these material goods be given...

... middle of paper ...

...will likewise be available to her co-player. But these conditions are never satisfied by the real human condition”( A.P. p16).

So would it be in my self-interest to cooperate with people in order to get a greater cooperative dividend? Well why bother because if I can chop down 5 coconuts from a tree the other guy only 3 and together we get 10 and then we are to split the coconuts by having 5 each what was the point of cooperating with this person when I alone already can get 5 coconuts. And since humans are not born equally physically and don’t think the same way Egalitarianism is false.

Bibliography:

References:

1. Viminitz, Paul. Philosophy of Game Theory, 1st Installment, Artificial Prudence. University of Lethbridge. January, 2001.

2. Nielsen, Kai, ‘Radical Egalitarian Justice: Justice as Equality’ Social Theory and Practice, 1979, 209-226.

Show More
Related

  • A Theory Of Justice, And John Rawls's Anarchy, State And Utopia

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    Robert Nozick in the excerpt from his book Anarchy, State and Utopia presents his ideas on why a government in power should not spread the wealth of the state among all of the residents. Nozick writes mainly in response to John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice in which Rawls focuses on the idea of the state working towards improving financially the lives of those that are in the worst conditions. To explain his point of view Nozick expounds on various concepts that provide a better understanding of the procedure that lead to him arriving at the conclusion that he did. This includes the entitlement theory of Nozick. In this paper I will explain how Nozick reaches the conclusion that redistributive justice should not take place along with a detailed look at the various major concepts of his theory. In addition, I will also provide my view on what John Rawls’s argument against Nozick’s theory might be. Finally, I will explain why I agree with John Rawl’s theory and present detailed reasoning.

    Read More

  • Game Theory: Thinking in Positive and Negative Possibilities

    1136 Words  | 3 Pages

    Ever since you were a child you have unknowingly used game theory. When your parents gave you the option to choose a candy bar, your brain started thinking of all the possibilities that depended on which candy you chose. You would think which one would taste better, make your feel better, and maybe be healthier for you. In the end, you would narrow your choices down to one piece of candy and eat it happily. Game theory is the use of theory to think through all of the positive and negative possibilities that could happen in a problem and try to maximize the positive. Game theory is not just one theory, throughout the years is has spread into six main games. These games are: zero sum games, non-zero sum games, simultaneous move games, sequential move games, one-shot games, and repeated games. Each of these games will be covered more in depth in this essay, with the exception of zero-sum games. Dalton will be writing about the zero-sum game in his essay.

    Read More

  • The Fairest Of Them All By John Rawls Analysis

    663 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Rawls is considered one of the most important political philosophers of the 20th century. His most famous work is on his theory of justice, which was later made into the book Justice as Fairness edited by Erin Kelly. In his work, Rawls sets out to discover what set of principles would best govern a just society. Rawls looks at the idea of a social contract, a concept first developed by philosophers John Locke and Kean Jacques Rousseau. Rawls, however, sets out to revive the social contract to create a realistic utopia that embodies the fair principles of justice. This approach holds that the society is in some sense an agreement among all those within the society on what constitutes a just society. Rawls believes that the fairest society would agree on his two principles of justice. Through his work, Rawls illustrates how and why a fair society would come to agree on these fair principles of justice, and at exactly what restrictions and presuppositions.

    Read More

  • Egalitarianism Essay

    1383 Words  | 3 Pages

    This investigation plans to explore the multiple political parties that existed during the French Revolution and how their doctrines reflected that of the citizens of the French Empire, from 1789 to 1799. This paper will focus upon the ideas of egalitarianism, or the belief in equality.

    Read More

  • Rawls Principles Of Justice Essay

    1396 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to Rawls, the challenge of justice is to ensure a just distribution of primary goods that include powers and opportunities, rights and liberties, means of self-respect, income and wealth among others (Rawls, 2001). Rawls disputes the earlier predominant common source of injustice, the utilitarianism theory, which states that justice is best defined by that which provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The theory of utilitarianism ignores the moral worth of an individual. This theory does not take into consideration the minority. An example is the mistreatment of the Jews by the Nazi Germans (Rawls, 2001).

    Read More

  • John Rawls' Approach to Distributive Justice

    1244 Words  | 3 Pages

    A Theory of Justice is the magnum opus of 20th century social contract theorist and political philosopher, John Rawls. A bit of background into this work is that social contract theory had fallen out of favor with political scientists and philosophers since the last 18th century, with the success of the American Revolution and the apparent triumph of John Locke and Democracy. However, with the advent of modern globalization, the emergence of America as a superpower, but the growing concern of socio-economic disparity necessitated a revisiting of the social contract, what it means, how societies and governments were best constructed.

    Read More

  • Libertarianism And Utilitarianism

    2203 Words  | 5 Pages

    1) In this statement, “Any just society must ensure that whatever the property ownership arrangement in that society, they enable all people to meet their needs,” both the libertarianism and utilitarianism reject this egalitarian criterion of a just society.

    Read More

  • Distributive Justice in a Defense of Pluralism and Equality by Michael Walzer

    680 Words  | 2 Pages

    Distributive justice requires the philosophical powers of reflection of the greatest theorists. In order to solve certain social issues, the most pragmatic solution must be concocted carefully to solve the biggest loopholes. Michael Walzer is no stranger to the complexity of social inequality. In his book A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, he argues that every society decides on the value of a social good and therefore should distribute those good according to the meanings they have. The social goods (healthcare, office, membership, money, politics, education) are divided into spheres each having their own distributive arguments. Walzer’s acceptance of the pluralistic nature of human group and ideology leads to his argument of a complex equality, one that contrasts the ideas of equality explicit in Rawlsian Liberalism.

    Read More

  • Mental Illness and Homelessness: A Value Based Approace

    2431 Words  | 5 Pages

    Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Read More

  • A Theory of Justice Presented by John Rawls

    1569 Words  | 4 Pages

    In A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents his argument for justice and inequality. Rawls theorizes that in the original position, a hypothetical state where people reason without bias, they would agree to live in a society based on two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 4). These two principles of justice are named the first and second principles. The first is the equal rights and liberties principle. The second is a combination of the difference principle and the fair equality of opportunity principle, or FEOP (Rawls 1971, 53). Rawls argues that inequality will always be inevitable in any society (Rawls 1971, 7). For example, there will always be a varied distribution of social and economic advantages. Some people will be wealthier than others and some will hold places of greater importance in society. Rawls’s argument is that to ensure the stability of society the two principles of justice are needed to govern the assignment of rights and regulate the inequality (Rawls 1971, 53). Any infringement of an individuals rights or inequality outside the parameters of the principles of justice are unjust.

    Read More

  • John Rawls Theory Of Justice

    2144 Words  | 5 Pages

    John Rawls theory of Justice begins with the notion of Justice as fairness. This concept provides a framework for the rightful use of

    Read More

  • Rawls And The Principles Of Justice

    2175 Words  | 5 Pages

    I. As one of the interpretations of the second principle of justice as fairness, Rawls argues that “democratic equality” is the best avenue for citizens to realize their life projects, as meeting of the difference principle with fair equality of opportunity. The second principle states that “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all” (Rawls, 53). With an unequal distribution of situations, the purpose of society “is not to establish and secure the more attractive prospects of those better off unless doing so is to the advantage of those less fortunate” (Rawls, 65). The principles of justice are in place to ensure that the “assignment of rights and duties” through the basic structure of society justly distribute both the “benefits and burdens” of social and economic advantages (Rawls, 47).

    Read More

  • Triangle Model Of Economic Inequality

    379 Words  | 1 Pages

    system of economic distribution. It is an issue that we have lived through, and with, our entire

    Read More

  • Equality in Peter Singer´s All Animals are Equal

    2024 Words  | 5 Pages

    Before I continue, it is important to note the distinction that Singer makes between “equal considerations” and “equal treatment”. For Singer, “equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights”. The principle of equality “does not imply that we must treat two groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights t...

    Read More

  • Distributive Justice By Robert Nozick And John Rawls

    1255 Words  | 3 Pages

    Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition.

    Read More

More about Egalitarianism is False

Open Document