Because of the stark contrasts between Marx, Nozick, and Rawls, the symposiums over the past week have raised many interesting questions about things like taxation and distribution of wealth. Each philosopher's beliefs has its pros and cons, its opponents and proponents. I think that one question that is very interesting is the idea of fairness: although some systems seem more fair than others, each could be considered fair in its own way.
Rawls defines justice as fairness. He believes that what is fair is just. Behind the veil of ignorance in the original position, people give everyone equal right to liberty so long as this liberty is compatible with everyone else's liberty. He also says any inequalities must be arranged to benefit the least advantaged. This system is clearly based on fairness--it is fair that everyone has equal right to liberty and that those who need the help of inequalities receive the greatest benefit from them.
Marx communist system could also be considered fair. Everyone is given what they need, and contributes what they can to society. This is fair, in that everyone gets what is needed and no one is asked to contribute more than they can. Everyone is treated the same and people aren't given advantages simply because they have greater skills than others. This is fair in the sense that everyone is treated as equals.
Nozick, on the other hand, believes that justice is simply the just acquisition of holdings. He believes the state should be minimal, and that everyone should be free to make their own decisions about how to use their holdings. This is fair in the sense that people can rise or fall in social status based on how their own merits. It rewards those who earn it, and doesn't reward those who don't earn it, and this is determined by the free market. In many ways, this is fair in that you get what you can justly aquire, and therefore can succeed or fail based on your own merits.
On the other hand, all three of these systems could be seen as unfair. For Rawls, how is it fair to the advantaged to arrange inequalities so that they are to their disadvantage? For Marx, how is it fair that someone who contributes more to society doesn't get more out of society? And for Nozick, how is it fair that some people are born into poverty, with a very difficult road to accumulating holdings? It seems that it is very difficult to create a truly fair society. Furthermore, it seems that the definition of fairness may not always be clear. Does it mean equality? Does it mean equal opportunity? Does it simply imply a random, unbiased distribution over a patterned one? These questions about fairness are interesting in questioning Rawls idea of "justice as fairness," but also in questioning the fair or unfair nature of the "just" societies that Nozick and Marx propose. Should a society be fair as well as just? And how can this be accomplished, or can it be accomplished?
I believe that the question that each of these philosophers is trying to answer is how to create a just and fair society in a world where socioeconomic, intellectual, physical and all other predispositions have been distributed unequally. Each philosopher would acknowledge that the individual is born with predispositions, often determining one’s wealth and success in a society. The question is, since no two people have the same abilities nor opportunities, how should wealth be fairly distributed?
ReplyDeleteNozick addresses this question with a hands-off approach. Whether the original distribution of goods is fair or not, they have been justly acquired, and therefore cannot be justly redistributed. Rawls also acknowledges inequalities between individuals, but because their predispositions were not merited, wealth should be distributed to the advantage of the weak. Finally, Marx believes that inequalities should not factor into wealth; each gives what he can and receives what he needs.
But which one is fair? For me, I agree with Rawls. Inequalities exist, and competition stimulates the economy and innovation. However, these inequalities are completely random; all of us easily could have been someone else. Therefore, like Rawls, I believe that the just and fair society is the one that cares for its weaker citizens.
In response to Rawls, I don't necessarily think that arranging inequality to benefit the disadvantaged is the same as harming the advantaged. The idea is that when some earn more than others it is because there is a net gain for all of society by that person having more resources. Perhaps there's a really intelligent and altruistic person, it would be to everyone's advantage if he/she were given more resources as he/she is more capable of improving other's lives with those resources.
ReplyDeleteTo Marx, the idea is that no one earns their natural abilities and predispositions; they are a combination of genetics and the family (or lack thereof) we are born into. The idea is that fairness is expecting everyone to maximize their own potential, to respect the fact that their capabilities are as arbitrary as the next person's lack of abilities. It doesn't feel good to think like this, but it is the truth. Even the desire to work hard is in and of itself a predisposition that you either have or don't have.
Nozick sheds light on the problems with redistributive justice when he asked "How far into history we should look to evaluate whether holdings are just?". Because we can't trace every person's accumulated wealth through history to determine its legitimacy, we must allow people to transfer goods as they see fit or else require the forfeit of their freedom to choose.
For Marx's you are not taking into account the relativity of what people give to society vs what they take out. You are using a capitalistic idea of fairness. If you look at a family how is it fair that the parents have to work X times as hard as their children? What would be fair is if everyone tried to give what they can. You cant expect someone who isnt capable of providing what society decides is most useful to be think its fair they receive less. because then what one receives is based on the tides of fortune. Lets say farmer who works just as hard as everyone else or for this example harder produces less for whatever external forces should not receive less simply because of his luck according to Marxs. Rawls operates under a similar principle to Marx's in that fortune should not determine peoples 'advantage.' Theres the capitalistic idea that its to ones advantage to have more. This is not the case. Having a surplus is not the only goal of society. The advantage of living in Rawls society is that you are never disadvantaged in a sense. If you have a bad harvest then the distribution of goods wouldnt punish you as hard. In the example with our current reading of A.I.G we see how easily the advantage can become disadvantaged.
ReplyDelete