Harvard philosophy lecture - John Rawls distributive justice

[PsychoSerenity]

I've been really enjoying this course of Harvard philosophy lectures with Michael Sandel.

This lecture is mostly discussing John Rawls theory of distributive justice - which is something I think I (mostly) agree with - as opposed to the endless libertarian vs Marxist debate that's been going around in circles here for a while now. I'll certainly spend some more time reading up on it here. (isn't free education awesome?!)

[JOZeldenrust]

I've been really enjoying this course of Harvard philosophy lectures with Michael Sandel.

This lecture is mostly discussing John Rawls theory of distributive justice - which is something I think I (mostly) agree with - as opposed to the endless libertarian vs Marxist debate that's been going around in circles here for a while now. I'll certainly spend some more time reading up on it here. (isn't free education awesome?!)

Excellent lecture. Turns out Rawls' theory of distributive justice closely resembles my own ideas on the way the means of production are distributed across society, and the way they should be. Nice to have my own ideas summarized more succinctly than I ever could, though it's annoying to think that you've come up with a useful new way of looking at social issues, only to find out someone else had almost exactly the same idea a few decades earlier.

That happened to me with the Doppler effect when I was six. It still stings.

Of course, Rawls' theory doesn't really give any practical answer as to how much social security or redistridution of wealth is the proper balance, but he does clear up the issue. We just have to figure out what we consider to be entitlements. Capitalistic economy already provides a nice framework for handling the just deserts.

[Hermit]

That one snuck up on me. For most of the time I thought something like "Nice. A justification for progressive income tax scales." Ho hum, nothing much I wasn't aware of already. Toward the end I realised how tightly the argument was constructed to come to the conclusion that if you are looking for a moral justification for your rewards, it is found in what happens to those at the bottom of society as a consequence of what you do, because while "[w]e are entitled to the benefits that the rules of the game promise for the exercise of our talents ... it’s a mistake and a conceit to suppose that we deserve in the first place a society that values the qualities we happen to have in abundance."

Found a transcript of of the lecture here, by the way. Thought I'd mention that in case there are others who prefer reading to listening.

[PsychoSerenity]

Nice to have my own ideas summarized more succinctly than I ever could, though it's annoying to think that you've come up with a useful new way of looking at social issues, only to find out someone else had almost exactly the same idea a few decades earlier.

That happened to me with the Doppler effect when I was six. It still stings.

Yeah I know exactly what you mean - after watching a program about how amazing the fine tuning of the universe was, I came up with the anthropic principle - it was several years later that I found out that plenty of people had thought of the concept before, and even given it a name!

Of course, Rawls' theory doesn't really give any practical answer as to how much social security or redistridution of wealth is the proper balance, but he does clear up the issue. We just have to figure out what we consider to be entitlements. Capitalistic economy already provides a nice framework for handling the just deserts.

Yes I agree it doesn't give a practical answer - I imagine there would be many different ways it could be implemented, and taxation was only used as one possibility - but I do think it's a good theoretical basis. Also I think he said the next lecture would cover something about that?, but I haven't watched it yet.

[Ronja]

Bookmarked for later viewing - very interesting, thanks Psychoserenity!

[Atheist-Lite]

I'm wary of any bloke in a suit saying anything concerning justice.

[hiyymer]

We're animals living out our evolutionary agenda. It's all rationalization. Societies aren't formed by committees of rational deciders. Philosophy is useless; trying to render rational what is not.

[Seth]

Interesting lecture. But here is the ultimate failing in Rawls' theory:

Michael Sandel: [Says Rawls] “The natural distribution,” and here he’s talking about the natural distribution of talents and endowments, “is neither just nor unjust. Nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.” That’s his answer to libertarian laissez-faire economists like Milton Friedman, who say, life is unfair, but get over it. Get over it and let’s see if we can at least maximize the benefits that flow from it. But the more powerful libertarian objection to Rawls is not libertarian, from the libertarian economists like Milton Friedman, it’s from the argument about self ownership, developed, as we saw, in Nozick. And from that point of view, yes it might be a good thing to create headstart programs and public schools so that everyone can go to a decent school and start the race at the same starting line. That might be good. But if you tax people to it, to create public schools, if you tax people against their will, you coerce them. It’s a form of theft. If you take some of Letterman’s $31 million, tax it away to support public schools against his will, the state is really doing no better than stealing from him. It’s coercion. And the reason is, we have to think of ourselves as owning our talents and endowments, because otherwise we’re back to just using people and coercing people. That’s the libertarian reply. What’s Rawls’ answer to that objection? He doesn’t address the idea of self ownership directly, but the effect, moral weight, for the difference principle is maybe we don’t own ourselves in that thoroughgoing sense after all. Now, he says this doesn’t mean that the state is an owner in me in the sense that it can simply commandeer my life, because remember, the first principle we would agree to behind the veil of ignorance, is the principle of basic human liberties, freedom of speech, religious liberty, freedom of conscious, and the like. So the only respect in which the idea of self ownership must give way comes when we’re thinking about whether I own myself in the sense that I have a privileged claim on the benefits that come from the exercise of my talents in a market economy. And Rawls says, on reflection, we don’t, we can defend rights, we can respect the individual, we can uphold human dignity, without embracing the idea of self possession. That, in effect, is his reply to the libertarian.(emphasis added)

It is an equivocation to say that we can respect the individual without embracing the idea of self possession. All Rawls is doing is to say that we will acknowledge human dignity and individual liberty but only outside the most essential part of individual liberty; the liberty to own oneself and the fruits of one's labor. This is a socialist equivocation, not a strong philosophical argument. Then Rawls turns the entire issue inside out and makes the presumption that when the individual insists on self possession and insists on claiming the fruits of that self possession, he is unfairly and unjustly enjoying "moral credit" that is not his to claim, even if the fruits flow simply from his extraordinary natural talents in this or that area.

When Rawls talks about distributive justice, and he chooses to analyze whether an individual may take "moral credit" for circumstances that lead to his obtaining a greater degree of reward, he is simply expounding the socialist principle, without stating it, that everyone must be equal in all things, and that for a society to be just, distribution of the fruits of society must adjusted according to this "moral credit" so that people are not "taking advantage" of anything, including one's natural talents or abilities.

Rawls argues, by proxy, that Michael Jordan and David Letterman are unjustly rewarded for their labor because they have an unfair natural talent for basketball or comedy, and that therefore their income should be taxed away to benefit the least talented and least successful as a part of "distributive justice." While Rawls does not evidently argue for precise economic and social equality in field-leveling, and he does allow for some disparate wealth, it's only to be associated with the need for the talented for extra income to support their talent, such as extra training for Jordan.

The nonsense behind Rawls theory is the presumption that there is such a thing as "distributive justice" in the first place, and that it is any more fair for the disadvantaged to take from the advantaged to bring themselves up in the world than it is for the advantaged to take from the disadvantaged to raise themselves up.

The fallacious presumption at the core of Rawls theory is that anyone is entitled to equality of outcome as compared to another, and that the advantaged have a moral duty to sacrifice their labor in order to provide equality of outcomes for the disadvantaged. This notion is a presumption of Rawls not based in anything but his personal belief that the disadvantaged are entitled to more than what they can themselves acquire or achieve.

The Libertarian principles that Rawls, through Sandel, are trying to refute are the principles that one is entitled to respect and dignity in all things, not just those things that one or the other person may deem morally worthy of respect, as is the case with Rawls. The most important Libertarian principle is that the individual has the right to self-possession and use and enjoyment of the fruits of his labor regardless of where he stands in society or the economy. Rich or poor, talented or untalented, Libertarians hold that the individual is ultimately responsible for his own advancement or failure, and that no other has a just claim on his talent or the fruits of his talent, or for that matter on the circumstances of his birth, beyond what the individual is willing to voluntarily accede to.

Rawls equivocates around the essential human need for personal autonomy and self-possession by stating as an unsubstantiated moral precept that everyone is entitled to some of what everyone else has in order that everyone can enjoy "distributive justice," which is to say equality of economic and social outcomes.

[hiyymer]

Interesting lecture. But here is the ultimate failing in Rawls' theory:

Michael Sandel: [Says Rawls] “The natural distribution,” and here he’s talking about the natural distribution of talents and endowments, “is neither just nor unjust. Nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.” That’s his answer to libertarian laissez-faire economists like Milton Friedman, who say, life is unfair, but get over it. Get over it and let’s see if we can at least maximize the benefits that flow from it. But the more powerful libertarian objection to Rawls is not libertarian, from the libertarian economists like Milton Friedman, it’s from the argument about self ownership, developed, as we saw, in Nozick. And from that point of view, yes it might be a good thing to create headstart programs and public schools so that everyone can go to a decent school and start the race at the same starting line. That might be good. But if you tax people to it, to create public schools, if you tax people against their will, you coerce them. It’s a form of theft. If you take some of Letterman’s $31 million, tax it away to support public schools against his will, the state is really doing no better than stealing from him. It’s coercion. And the reason is, we have to think of ourselves as owning our talents and endowments, because otherwise we’re back to just using people and coercing people. That’s the libertarian reply. What’s Rawls’ answer to that objection? He doesn’t address the idea of self ownership directly, but the effect, moral weight, for the difference principle is maybe we don’t own ourselves in that thoroughgoing sense after all. Now, he says this doesn’t mean that the state is an owner in me in the sense that it can simply commandeer my life, because remember, the first principle we would agree to behind the veil of ignorance, is the principle of basic human liberties, freedom of speech, religious liberty, freedom of conscious, and the like. So the only respect in which the idea of self ownership must give way comes when we’re thinking about whether I own myself in the sense that I have a privileged claim on the benefits that come from the exercise of my talents in a market economy. And Rawls says, on reflection, we don’t, we can defend rights, we can respect the individual, we can uphold human dignity, without embracing the idea of self possession. That, in effect, is his reply to the libertarian.(emphasis added)

It is an equivocation to say that we can respect the individual without embracing the idea of self possession. All Rawls is doing is to say that we will acknowledge human dignity and individual liberty but only outside the most essential part of individual liberty; the liberty to own oneself and the fruits of one's labor. This is a socialist equivocation, not a strong philosophical argument. Then Rawls turns the entire issue inside out and makes the presumption that when the individual insists on self possession and insists on claiming the fruits of that self possession, he is unfairly and unjustly enjoying "moral credit" that is not his to claim, even if the fruits flow simply from his extraordinary natural talents in this or that area.

When Rawls talks about distributive justice, and he chooses to analyze whether an individual may take "moral credit" for circumstances that lead to his obtaining a greater degree of reward, he is simply expounding the socialist principle, without stating it, that everyone must be equal in all things, and that for a society to be just, distribution of the fruits of society must adjusted according to this "moral credit" so that people are not "taking advantage" of anything, including one's natural talents or abilities.

Rawls argues, by proxy, that Michael Jordan and David Letterman are unjustly rewarded for their labor because they have an unfair natural talent for basketball or comedy, and that therefore their income should be taxed away to benefit the least talented and least successful as a part of "distributive justice." While Rawls does not evidently argue for precise economic and social equality in field-leveling, and he does allow for some disparate wealth, it's only to be associated with the need for the talented for extra income to support their talent, such as extra training for Jordan.

The nonsense behind Rawls theory is the presumption that there is such a thing as "distributive justice" in the first place, and that it is any more fair for the disadvantaged to take from the advantaged to bring themselves up in the world than it is for the advantaged to take from the disadvantaged to raise themselves up.

The fallacious presumption at the core of Rawls theory is that anyone is entitled to equality of outcome as compared to another, and that the advantaged have a moral duty to sacrifice their labor in order to provide equality of outcomes for the disadvantaged. This notion is a presumption of Rawls not based in anything but his personal belief that the disadvantaged are entitled to more than what they can themselves acquire or achieve.

The Libertarian principles that Rawls, through Sandel, are trying to refute are the principles that one is entitled to respect and dignity in all things, not just those things that one or the other person may deem morally worthy of respect, as is the case with Rawls. The most important Libertarian principle is that the individual has the right to self-possession and use and enjoyment of the fruits of his labor regardless of where he stands in society or the economy. Rich or poor, talented or untalented, Libertarians hold that the individual is ultimately responsible for his own advancement or failure, and that no other has a just claim on his talent or the fruits of his talent, or for that matter on the circumstances of his birth, beyond what the individual is willing to voluntarily accede to.

Rawls equivocates around the essential human need for personal autonomy and self-possession by stating as an unsubstantiated moral precept that everyone is entitled to some of what everyone else has in order that everyone can enjoy "distributive justice," which is to say equality of economic and social outcomes.

And around and around and around. Ultimately the only thing that is going on is that the images in our brain create consciously perceived emotional tags of "right" and "wrong" and "ought" and "should"; biological value. There is no rational basis for them. It is your evolutionary equipment responding; being inside the mechanism of the life form. Every moral issue is merely a conflict of biological feedbacks. There is never a rational answer. When it's time for a real response your subconscious brain will decide which tag wins and it will create the perception that "you" did it. Try to make one motivation into the "reason" and it will always eventually bump into another "reason". LIfe inside the mechanism is non rational.

[pErvinalia]

Nice to have my own ideas summarized more succinctly than I ever could, though it's annoying to think that you've come up with a useful new way of looking at social issues, only to find out someone else had almost exactly the same idea a few decades earlier.

That happened to me with the Doppler effect when I was six. It still stings.

Yeah I know exactly what you mean - after watching a program about how amazing the fine tuning of the universe was, I came up with the anthropic principle - it was several years later that I found out that plenty of people had thought of the concept before, and even given it a name!

Yeah, that was me. I'm glad you liked the name.

[Coito ergo sum]

Nice to have my own ideas summarized more succinctly than I ever could, though it's annoying to think that you've come up with a useful new way of looking at social issues, only to find out someone else had almost exactly the same idea a few decades earlier.

That happened to me with the Doppler effect when I was six. It still stings.

Yeah I know exactly what you mean - after watching a program about how amazing the fine tuning of the universe was, I came up with the anthropic principle - it was several years later that I found out that plenty of people had thought of the concept before, and even given it a name!

.

I had the idea for salad in a bag when I was I was in high school. I should be a millionaire, but I was robbed.