From: Subir Grewal <grewals@acf2.nyu.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 04:01:18 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Rawls, was RE: Children's Privacy Act.
In-Reply-To: <01I53P6L2ZIQ8Y4ZAY@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.92.960525095622.14671C-100000@acf2.NYU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 24 May 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

:	Most arguments on fairness ultimately come down to either appeals to
:gut instincts - not a valid argument - or philosophical ones, generally
:Rawls' Theory of Justice. That one has a problem. Rawls thought that the
:most just social system was that which a group of people would come up with
:when they didn't know what position they'd be in. This would lead to equality,
:since nobody'd want to be in the low position, right? Wrong. People can
:rationally take a chance. If you give someone a choice between gambling for
:(on the flip of a 50/50 coin) 150 or 0 dollars, and getting 50 dollars
:guaranteed, the rational choice is the gamble. In other words, if it is more
:efficient - as I have argued - for things to be unequal, then this idea of
:what justice is would argue for inequality being just.

I don't think that is exactly what Rawls was postulating (though I would
be the first to agree that Rawls' prose is exceptionally interpretable,
which I belive is a point in Rawls favour as a writer).  Rawlsian "Justice
as fairness" is based on the idea that a just system is one in which
people decide rules before they know what their starting positions are.
In a sense this is only taking the idea of a "disinterested/impartial
lawmaker" and putting it into another context.  What is perhaps more
fundamentally important about Rawls is his profound respect for contract
and expectations engendered by the contract, as evidenced in his argument
for the rules being laid down befor eht egame (in this case life as we
know it) begins.  I think this is why Hayek felt "A theory of Justice" was
not the text others thought it was (I haven't read Nozick's Anarchy, State
and Utopia as of yet, only bits of it).  In any case, I don't
really believe Rawls argued for an egalitarian system.  The two "rules" he
thinks will emerge from the "initial position behind the veil of
ignorance" are (pg. 60)

First; each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic
liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they
are both a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and b)
attached to positions and offices open to all.

He goes on to say "While the distribution of wealth and income need not be
equal, it must be to everyone's advantage, and at the same time, positions
of authority and offices of command must be accessible to all.  .... These
principles are to be arranged in a serial order with the first principle
prior to the second.  This ordering means that a departure from the
institutions of equal liberty required by the first principle cannot be
justified by, or compensated for, by greater social and economic
advantages".   He then adds to the argument the concept of the difference
principle (pareto optimality in the final reckoning) and maximin
(maximizing the expectations/outcome of the person at the lowest rung of
the ladder).  About the difference principle Rawls says " it should be
observed that the difference principle, or the ideas expressed by it, can
easily be accomodated to the general conception of justice.  In fact, the
general conception is simply the difference principle applied to all
primary goods including liberty and opportunity".

I really don't see Rawls arguing strict egalitarianism in "A theory of
Justice".  Further, I believe the most important contribution made by this
book is the principle of the "veil of ignorance / initial position" as a
test for the fariness/justice of a particular system.  Rawls proposal is
simply his idea of what would result from the initial position (as you
poit out) and certainly we can come up with other equally acceptable
proposals.  But it is essential to read Rawls because he is so
interpretable, my own reading may be flawed.  In any case, Rawls is well
aware of the demands efficiency places on an egalitarian system (which it
is unable to meet) and does agree that inequality can be in everyone's
interest (i.e. spill-over's, for eg. because geniuses need incentives as
well as does the company that brings you your breakfast cereal).  As a
final quip, the result (in any particular game) of the question regarding
the gamble you proposed earlier depends almost entirely on the player's
aversion to risk.  Some among us (I'm sure) would be willing to take $50
in hand rather than $2million in the bush ;~)

hostmaster@trill-home.com * Symbiant test coaching * Blue-Ribbon * Lynx 2.5
WHERE CAN THE MATTER BE

	Oh, dear, where can the matter be
	When it's converted to energy?
	There is a slight loss of parity.
	Johnny's so long at the fair.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Key Escrow = Conscription for the masses | 2048 bit via finger

iQB1AwUBMacYMRwDKqi8Iu65AQGsuAL+OVORTCAedDLFaG4WqrUow2Ytx5CE8/vU
X8KO6D7f8G5uUTi5yEKxz+rrx3mOVg7lyLyqA0a05CbZfiUnoSuAXxKkFihST8xi
JM2xWsngdyG0ZbEtV85+3TASBRvXP8rR
=Ebe4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----