John Rawls

[aleph_0]

I am rather impressed by this litmus test for justly formed laws:

The legislators are given the task of forming the nation's laws entirely and in one fell swoop. The catch: They have to get it right the first time, for after they create the laws they will die. Moreover, once they die, they will be reincarnated as citizens of the society they just legislated, and they have no knowledge of as what class, gender, or race they be reincarnated. The just laws of a nation will be the laws that a rational legislator would enact.

I think, with argument, this would imply capitalist laws. But more clearly, I think this would show at least a large class of laws to be irrational--namely, the ones that favor one group of arbitrarily defined people over another.

[Seeker]

The problem I see is that class, gender, and race are independent of whether one is a capitalist. Entrepreneurial achievement is something that one chooses, not something that one is born into. So unless it is stipulated that the legislators believe in capitalism, I do not see how it implies capitalist laws. They could be perfectly miserable socialists bent on implementing socialism, eager for their rebirth into socialist utopia.

Edited December 18, 2006 by Seeker

[aleph_0]

If they were socialists, though, I would argue that they legislate irrationally. As I said, it takes some argument and I find this interesting largely because it presents the same old question in a new light.

For if I were on the legislative body, I would want a guarantee that however I were reincarnated I would have the power to exercise my will, solely and independently suffer my mistakes, and solely and independently enjoy my accomplishments. To wish anything else is to wish to default on one's own life.

[y_feldblum]

Reincarnation? That old myth cannot advance an organization of society the motivation for which is, actually, reason. The two motives are opposites.

[Seeker]

Rawls thought that a rational person would say "to hell with everyone else" and sought a solution to that problem, but he was wrong in his starting premise; consequently, the whole example falls apart. A rational legislator wouldn't need reincarnation (or Rawls' "veil of ignorance") to permit capitalism, because a rational person would recognize - as Rawls did not - the value that other free minds pursuing their rational self-interest can provide to one's own life.

[DarkWaters]

I have not actually read anything by John Rawls but it is my understanding that his works on justice have the following salient flaw:

He views intelligence as mostly a natural gift and not an ability that is largely dependent on one's efforts at intellectual development. Thus, in his model, one is born with intelligence according to a probability distribution and not a function of the individual himself. Under this assumption, Rawls argued that a rational person surely would want to choose a secure strategy and design a more socialist state.

Reincarnation? That old myth cannot advance an organization of society the motivation for which is, actually, reason. The two motives are opposites.

The reincarnation is not essential here. The principle John Rawls wants is that individuals design a society without knowledge of their socioeconomic, religious or ethnic standing in it.

Edited December 19, 2006 by DarkWaters

[y_feldblum]

Then what possible motive can there be, without reincarnation of the soul, for an individual to design a non-hedonistic society?

[aleph_0]

Rawls thought that a rational person would say "to hell with everyone else" and sought a solution to that problem, but he was wrong in his starting premise; consequently, the whole example falls apart. A rational legislator wouldn't need reincarnation (or Rawls' "veil of ignorance") to permit capitalism, because a rational person would recognize - as Rawls did not - the value that other free minds pursuing their rational self-interest can provide to one's own life.

Um... So what really is your criticism of Rawls here? That he need not have constructed the situation the way he did to figure out what just laws are? I stated that much in the very beginning. I'm just saying this is a second, fairly interesting way of thinking about it.

I have not actually read anything by John Rawls but it is my understanding that his works on justice have the following salient flaw:

He views intelligence as mostly a natural gift and not an ability that is largely dependent on one's efforts at intellectual development. Thus, in his model, one is born with intelligence according to a probability distribution and not a function of the individual himself. Under this assumption, Rawls argued that a rational person surely would want to choose a secure strategy and design a more socialist state.

Agreed, this is a fundamental and inexcusable error on Rawl's part. But it doesn't affect this hypothetical.

[DarkWaters]

Then what possible motive can there be, without reincarnation of the soul, for an individual to design a non-hedonistic society?

John Rawls would argue the desire to build a society that is "fair" for everyone.

I assume that you meant the above question as addressed specifically to John Rawls, as you probably know how Objectivists refute a society centered around whim-worship.

[DarkWaters]

The legislators are given the task of forming the nation's laws entirely and in one fell swoop. The catch: They have to get it right the first time, for after they create the laws they will die. Moreover, once they die, they will be reincarnated as citizens of the society they just legislated, and they have no knowledge of as what class, gender, or race they be reincarnated. The just laws of a nation will be the laws that a rational legislator would enact.

I think, with argument, this would imply capitalist laws. But more clearly, I think this would show at least a large class of laws to be irrational--namely, the ones that favor one group of arbitrarily defined people over another.

Hey Aleph,

Do you know if John Rawls has a precise stated objective for the legislators in this thought experiment?

Some possible interpretations that I can think of are:

* Design a society such that the expected utility of a uniformly selected individual is maximized.

* Design a society such that the utility of the individuals who are worst off is maximized.

* Design a society such that the utility between any two arbitrarily selected individuals is as close as possible.

* Design a society such that individuals all start out equally but can achieve any amount of success as long as it stems from individual effort?

I am somewhat familiar with the philosophy of Rawls although I have never read any of his works directly. I never quite understood his objective aside from achieving "justice" and "fairness".

If I remember correctly, John Rawls did not advocate pure egalitarianism, as he thought that an individual who was capable of helping more individuals, such as a medical doctor, is justly entitled to being better off. Of course, I have no idea if he actually offered a mechanism to gauge such capability but he did advocate that it was the government's role to ensure that individuals are limited to only what they are "entitled" to. Needless to say, I presently see no better mechanism to judge an individual's "worth" to other individuals than the prices that their goods or services would sell for in a free market.

But it doesn't affect this hypothetical.

I just noticed this comment. What did you mean?

Given that John Rawls is a highly cited philosopher today, it would probably be beneficial to get a better understanding of his philosophy and to be able to identify his strong points, his flaws and his assumptions.

[D'kian]

Funny. There's a Paratime novelette by H. Beam Piper which poses a similar problem.

There's a society convinced that reincarnation is real (they have proof). In connection with it there is a dispute concerning inheritances. One group believes reincarnation is a random process. They favor abolishing inheritances and setting up a socialist economy. The other group believes a soul will choose a body to reincarnate into. They favor continued inheritance, but do not have much of an economic position beyond that).

The socialists' in the story argue that the odds favor one reincarnating into a poor family (actually into an average one, but I digress), and thus a socialist economy gives everyone an equal chance (as if!)

[DavidV]

I think this would show at least a large class of laws to be irrational--namely, the ones that favor one group of arbitrarily defined people over another.

This argument simply states that "equality under the law is a good thing." Sure - few people will explicitly argue for special privileges. But what is "equality"? Is affirmative action equality? Is a welfare equality? (What about immigrants?) In practice, this thought experiment provides no practical guidance whatsoever, except to subtly advance the egalitarian ideal.

[utabintarbo]

It would seem that the type of laws the hypothetical legislator would construct would largely depend on that legislator's view of man. If he does not view man as being generally capable, he will likely support more socialist-leaning laws. On the other hand, if he views man as being generally able to overcome adversities, he will support more Capitalist-ic laws.

[DarkWaters]

I wish to present my findings on some my modest research on John Rawls. As a disclaimer, I wish to state that I am not a student of philosophy so it is very possible that I have made some mistakes. As always, constructive comments are welcome.

Rawls' stated goal

First of all, John Rawls is a Rationalist. His stated approach is to discover a few axioms about what a just society should be and then deduce everything from there. He states that these principles must be (Kantian) universal, general, immutable (that is, will not change as the society progresses), public and ordered (that is, if any of the principles contradict, the lower principles will be trumped by the higher ones).

Rawls' assumptions

1.) Abilities, intellectual capacity and tastes are largely gifts resulting from a genetic lottery and are not predominately a function of individual effort.

2.) When designing a society, every individual should be placed behind a "veil of ignorance". That is, individuals will be ignorant of what socioeconomic background they will be born into, how smart they will be, what their career goals will be and the like.

3.) When designing a society behind the rational "veil of ignorance", all individuals should have their rational self-interest in mind.

4.) All participants in this thought experiment possess all worldly knowledge necessary to design a society.

5.) Wealth in society is more accurately represented by the distributive model than the growth model. (Given the first assumption and this one you can already tell this is going to get really bad.)

Rawls' principles

The following are Rawls' three main (paraphrased) principles, in order of decreasing importance. I assume that these are what would be developed by the thought experiment detailed above.

1.) Justice is fairness.

2.) All individuals must have equal access to liberty.

3.) Any inequality must benefit everyone.

Rawls' offers two possible interpretations to the italicized fragment that he considers just. The first, is the efficiency principle which advocates distributing inequality to maximize the expected well being of any individual in society. The second, is the difference principle, which advocates distributing inequality so as to maximize the standard of living for the worst off individuals.

From here Rawls then derives his ideal social contractist, egalitarian society with government run education, government run healthcare, some (if not all) price and wage regulation, inheritance taxes and the like.

Some analysis

Despite capturing the hearts and minds of many political theorists today, the philosophy of John Rawls is both frightening and atrocious. The first and fifth assumptions are inaccurate and obviously if presupposed can lead to some conclusions that greatly conflict with reality. The influence of Kant on his philosophy is very apparent, especially with his constant drive to obtain universal principles. Furthermore, given his acceptance of the distributive economic model and the rejection of Adam Smith's growth model reveals that he has a good amount of influence from Marx.

Lastly, his thought experiment demonstrates the dangers of the Rationalism. He uses concepts of "justice" and "fairness" without the appropriate context in which they are discovered. This leads to perverse conclusions such as how it is unjust that some individuals receive greater compensation in the workforce because they were (probably) born with a greater intellect than their lower-paid counterparts. Of course, how could one tell whether or not individuals choose to develop their capacities?

This stolen concept of justice also leads to the offensive statement that parents are not allowed to provide greater educational opportunities for their children as that would not be fair to children whose parents do not choose or cannot afford to provide such advantages. As stated in a previous post, John Rawls seems to offer no other mechanism to determine an individual's worth to society other than total state control.

Overall, his philosophy is horrendous.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Lastly, his thought experiment demonstrates the dangers of the Rationalism. He uses concepts of "justice" and "fairness" without the appropriate context in which they are discovered. This leads to perverse conclusions such as how it is unjust that some individuals receive greater compensation in the workforce because they were (probably) born with a greater intellect than their lower-paid counterparts. Of course, how could one tell whether or not individuals choose to develop their capacities?

Overall, his philosophy is horrendous.

Amen! The late Kurt Vonegut satirized this position in his short novel -Harrison Bergeron-. The chief officer of the government is The Handicapper General. Anyone with talent is burdened with impedimenta that decrease the efficacy of his talent. All in the name of "fairness", "justice" and evening out the playing field.

Bob Kolker

[softwareNerd]

I wish to present my findings on some my modest research on John Rawls.

Thanks for that summary DW.

Investor Warren Buffet mentions a variation of this when people ask him why he supports higher tax-rates for rich people like himself. He says that being born in the U.S. is like getting a great ticket in an "ovarian lottery", and being born in Bangladesh is like getting a losing ticket. He asks: if one could step back to a fictional time when one is about to draw the lottery ticket, how would one design the system into which one would be born? Would it be like what we have today?? Or, would it be one where (say) the U.S. does more to help Bangladesh? I never realized that Buffett got this --- probably years ago, via some college professor -- from Rawls.

You rightly point out the problems with the Rawls analysis: faulty idea of justice, and the faulty idea of people being not contributing much to their own success. Still, this particular thought-experiment itself is an interesting one, because -- in essence -- it's asking what system is good as a universal principle.

Softer versions of Rawl's argument are beguiling because they take the man-made as the metaphysically-given. Many people will agree that an individual growing up in the U.S. can do a lot to influence his destiny; so, they do not buy Rawl's argument in full. At the same time, most rich people will say they want the government to give a hand-up to the kids born (say) in urban ghettos. At least part of the problem comes from taking a situation like "urban ghetto" or "Bangladeshi poverty" as being a fact that simply is, i.e., as the metaphysically given.

One route out is to see that these poor situations are man-made, and more often than not furthered by the very government programs that seek to address them.

If someone poses the Rawl's thought-experiment, I suggest re-framing it by assuming three alternatives: suppose one could choose to be born into one of three systems, which one of the following would one choose:

• a system like the U.S., where one might be born into either a rich family or a poor family on welfare?
  
• a more socialist system, but not one that's as far-gone as the U.S.S.R. (say something between 1970's Britain and Yugoslavia)
  
• a system that is more capitalist than the U.S., where -- if one is born into a poor family -- they have no welfare, no food-stamps, and no free schools
  

As Objectivists, the answer is clear, so I won't bother saying any more.

[DarkWaters]

I never realized that Buffett got this --- probably years ago, via some college professor -- from Rawls.

The influence of John Rawls is definitely palpable even in some unlikely places. In India Unbound, Gurcharan Das cites his exposure as a Harvard student to the philosophy of John Rawls as a great influence on his love of Capitalism. The author and former CEO of Procter & Gamble India perceived John Rawls' Theory of Justice to be long awaited philosophical justification of income inequality, which he saw as an intellectual prerequisite to validate Capitalism. I hope that by now, the author realizes that this egalitarian philosophy is an intellectual barrier to free-market Capitalism.

If anyone is interested, the aforementioned book is generally a very informative recent economic history of India.