The Case For Equality John Rawls Rawls asks

The Case For Equality John Rawls

• Rawls asks us to imagine that we are gathered to write a social contract. HE believes we would try to shape it according to our own self-interests, and that there are those who, because of certain advantages, that would get their way. • The only fair way to create a Social Contract would be for everyone to begin at what he calls an “original position of equality” behind a “veil of Ignorance” Social Contract

• The Veil of Ignorance deprives participants of information about their particular characteristics: his or her ethnicity, social status, gender and, beliefs about religion or politics. This forces participants to select principles impartially and rationally. • Since no one would have a superior bargaining position, and because everyone would want to benefit once the veil is lifter, Rawls assumes the principles we would agree to would be just. The Veil of Ignorance

• Rawls believes that society should be arranged according to two principles • The Liberty Principle: Every individual has an equal right to basic, inalienable liberties. • The Equality Principle (Two Parts) • Part A: Fair Equality of Opportunity--"offices and positions"[6] should be open to any individual, regardless of his or her social background, ethnicity or sex. • Part B: The Difference Principle: Only inequalities are allowed that work to the advantage of the worst off. Rawls’ Social Contract

• Rawls asks us to consider 4 ways of distributive justice: 1. Fuedal or Caste System: Fixed Hierarchy based on birth. 2. Libertarian: Free market with formal equality of opportunity. 3. Meritocratic: Free market with fair equality of opportunity 4. Egalitarian: The Difference Principle (154) Rawls rejects the first three because he believes they distribute shares based on arbitrary factors such as birth, social and economic advantage , or natural talents and ability. Only the 4 th allows the distribution if wealth and income free from contigencies. The Argument from Moral Arbitrariness

Critics argue that under Rawls’ difference principle, people would be less inclined to work because of a lack of incentives. There is no reason to put forth effort, if your wealth is capped or redistributed. 1. Incentives: Go to page 155. 2. Effort: Continue from 155. Objections to Rawls

• Rawls rejects the idea that distributive justice should reward moral desert. • “ There is a tendency for common sense to suppose that income and wealth, and the good thing in life generally should be distributed according to moral desert. Justice is happiness according to virtue…justice as fairness rejects this conception…. We do not deserve our place in the distribution f native endowments any more that we deserve our initial starting point in society. That we deserve the superior character that enables us to make the effort to cultivate our abilities is also problematic; for such character depends in part upon fortunate and social circumstances early in life for which one can claim no credit. ” (158) Rejecting Moral Desert

• Having talents that enable me to compete more effectively are the result of factors I do not control. • The values of society are also morally arbitrary. The talents and skills we admire and reward change over time and place. (See page 160) Moral Deserts continued

Is life fair? • Critics of Rawls say that life is unfair. It is too bad that some have much and others little, but they argue that the government has no right to force people to redistribute their wealth. • Rawls believes that life is neither fair nor unfair. What is unfair is failing to work for the common good. He says we should “avail ourselves of the accidents of nature and social circumstance only when doing so for the common benefit. ” 163

• For Aristotle and the ancients political thought revolves around promoting virtue. • Aristotle teaches that justice is giving people what they deserve. • To do this we must decide what virtues are worthy of honor and reward Aristotle

• Justice is teleological. Defining rights requires us to figure out the telos, or essential nature or purpose of a practice. • Justice is honorific. It honors and rewards certain practices more than others. • The Virtuous person takes pleasure in doing good and takes pain in doing evil. Justice, Telos, and Honor