Week 8 Essay
PO4030 Theories of Distributive Justice
Student: Michael Casey (12038008)
Is the Difference Principle fair to the productive and talented members of society?
In this paper I will argue that the Difference Principle is not fair to the productive and talented members of society. I will begin by providing a short overview of Rawls’ second principle of justice: the Difference Principle as outlined in A Theory of Justice (1971), followed by an argument, with the help of some opposing philosophical views to Rawls including Robert Noziak, Miller and Cohen, as to why I believe this principle is mostly unfair to the productive and talented members of society. The main argument I will assess, in this essay, is the libertarian objections
…show more content…
44-45). In A Theory of Justice, Rawls develops his principles of justice through what he calls the ‘original position’ whereby the principles of justice are decided under ‘the veil of ignorance. Those behind ‘the veil of ignorance are blind to all facts about themselves which means that they cannot mould principles to their own preferred advantage. Rawls asserts that the parties in the original position would implement two principles, which would then oversee the assignment of rights and duties and control the distribution of social and economic advantages throughout society. According to Rawls, the difference principle permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society (Rawls …show more content…
David Miller argues that poverty is not actually caused by the well-off in society so why should the rich of society pay towards the less fortunate? (Miller 2007, pp. 260-261). Rawls Difference Principle does not deny that people should be responsible for their own success and that some deserve a greater share of wealth because of their hard work but the taxing of the richest to provide for the poorest in society does lend itself to strict equality. The Difference Principle seems to care more about the absolute gain of the poorer in society as opposed to the relative gain that could be improved by hard work. G.A Cohen criticises Rawls contention that incentives are only necessary because of the attitudes and choices made by the better-off in life. He also says that there are talented and untalented people in society and the talent produce more than the less talented, thus they should be rewarded sufficiently and not punished/taxed resulting from the untalented person’s lack of talent (Cohen
If a human being is a material composite substance, she does not have freedom in the libertarian sense. (3,4)
In the treatise named “Leviathan” published in 1651, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) proposed an early variant of equality among men that inequality did not exist in natural condition, meaning everyone is born equal; however, inequality's existence was the result of civil laws (Hobbes & Gaskin, 1998). In this sense, inequality is generally referred to social inequality which is characterized by the existence of unequal opportunities and rewards for different social positions or statuses within a group or society; plus, this negative social phenomenon contains structured and recurrent patterns of unequal distributions of goods, wealth, opportunities, rewards, and punishments (Crossman, 2012).
They state that in order for society to function properly, society must make sure that people fully use their talents. Inequalities stem from the fact that society values different roles in different ways, based on the shared norms and values of a society. Davis and Moore argue that inequality is inevitable in modern society because people need to be put into diffe... ... middle of paper ... ... however it is interesting to note that there are still less working class children entering university than those from a middle class background.
He condemns the libertarian mindset that focuses so much on autonomy and individualism and calls for the creation of more just social structures and policies that address the structural causes of poverty. He is explicit in his rejection of an approach that relies too heavily on free markets: “We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market.”
On the other hand, Carnegie understands that there exists inequality, but he believes that the superior can cooperate with the inferior to gain equality. In fact, it the document he clarifies, “There remains…only one mode of using great fortunes…in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor−a reign of harmony” (Carnegie, 54). Carnegie does not particularly consider inequality a problem. He understands that in order for wealthy to facilitate the lives of the poor, there must be inequality to establish status, but he also discerns that by helping the poor they are given a chance to reach equality. In fact, Carnegie says, “Individualism will
I have read the Theory of Justice and I have found it wanting in both scope and realism. The difference principle proposed by Rawls, his second principle, is the focus of my critique. While this paper will not focus solely on the second principle, all analysis done within this essay are all targeted towards the scope of influence that Rawls treats the second principle with. Why is it that a person has to offset his initial gain for the betterment of others? Rawls proposes this idea as the criterion for his second principle, the difference principle.
Arguments about fairness and justice have been up for debate for centuries. "What do we deserve?", a question that has many individuals raising their brows to their efforts in their pursuit to achieve their goals. If it is said that we are all placed on an equal standard why are there individuals struggling to stay afloat? In Arora’s essay, he examines three forms of economic modals of social justices that question that idea of why the prosperous or the impecunious "deserve" their position or stature in life. Out of all of Arora's economic modals that he presents the Meritocratic System is the fairest because it gives everyone a fighting chance.
Lastly, William Graham Sumner claimed that social inequality is the direct result of men attempting to make their own way in society. “Rights should be equal, because they pertain to chances, and all ought to have equal chances so far as chances are provided or limited by the action of society.” 2 Here he contrasts rights to chances, claiming that rights do not assure success, but only a chance to be
John Rawls’ Theory of Justice attempts to establish a fair and reasonable social account of social justice. To do this, he discusses two fundamental principles of justice, which if implemented into society, would guarantee a just and fair way of life. Rawls is mostly concerned with the social good (what is good and just), and his aim with the Theory of Justice is to provide a way that society could be one that is fair and just, while taking into consideration, a person’s primary goods (rights and liberties, opportunities, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect). The usage of these principles will lead to an acceptable basis of self-respect. That saying, if the two principles are fair and just, then the final primary good,
The social contract theory of John Rawls challenges utilitarianism by pointing out the impracticality of the theory. Mainly, in a society of utilitarians, a citizens rights could be completely ignored if injustice to this one citizen would benefit the rest of society. Rawls believes that a social contract theory, similar those proposed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, would be a more logical solution to the question of fairness in any government. Social contract theory in general and including the views of Rawls, is such that in a situation where a society is established of people who are self interested, rational, and equal, the rules of justice are established by what is mutually acceptable and agreed upon by all the people therein. This scenario of negotiating the laws of that society that will be commonly agreed upon and beneficial to all is what Rawls terms "The Original Position and Justification".
In order to form this fair society, Rawls creates the idea of the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance removes the prejudice from our decision making by allowing us to act as if we did not know our special talents, our race, our gender, or anything else that makes us unique individuals. Now because we do not know where we would fall in this fair society from behind the veil of ignorance, our natural instinct would be to raise the lowest class of people to a place that we would be comfortable in if we were to be there. This would also lower the stance of the highest class of people, but they would still be a higher class.
One might argue that behind the Veil of Ignorance, society will be able to develop such fundamental rights and equality naturally. Considering that modern society can be seen to have developed laws and cultural rules without the veil of ignorance, it stands to reason that Rawls’ suggested principles are unnecessary. Looking at gender inequality, German Arianism and its sharp declines suggests that society is self-correcting – particularly if the society in question exists in the modern era where international pressure for the maintenance of fundamental liberties, equality of opportunity and support for the disadvantaged is exercised. The representatives behind the Veil of Ignorance can be expected to recognise, however, the potential for deviation and adopt a conservative approach - they will not risk society’s basic structure.... ...
...e achieved when the Liberty and Difference Principle are enacted with the veil of ignorance. On the contrary, Nozick argues that Rawls’s theory is exactly the sort of patterned principle that infringes upon individual liberty. As an alternative, Nozick provides his unpatterned principle as the ideal distribution of goods in a society. To me, Rawls’s argues his theory in a manner where his principles of justice are not only difficult to achieve, but ultimately are exceedingly deficient in providing general utility. The veil of ignorance has proved to be almost impossible as well as unethical. The Difference Principle in itself is unable to justly distribute property since it clearly violates an individual’s liberty. Since Rawls’s method of distributive justice is rendered unreasonable and inefficient, it leaves us with a clear answer derived from two disjunctions.
Rawls’ primary goal in designing the original position is to describe a situation that he believes would achieve the most extensive liberty and fairness possible to all the parties involved in his hypothetical social contract (Rawls, 1971). Rawls believes that in order to achieve this level of fairness, it must be assumed that the parties involved are situated behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ (Rawls, 1971). This veil of ignorance deprives all of the parties of all knowledge of arbitrary facts about themselves, about other citizens, from influencing the agreement among the representatives (Rawls, 1971). For example, “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.” (Rawls, 1971, 137) Rawls argues that if rational people found themselves in this position, they would al...
...egarding their classes within the state, which is essentially the idea of maximin. Therefore Rawls' approach to justice conveys the notion that our response to poverty should begin on a state level, for it is through the building of just state institutions that his two main principles can begin to take effect, which in turn, as Rawls' would argue, would lead to a more just and equal state which benefited persons of all social rankings.