Political philosophers have weird debates
02 Jul 2014 Leave a comment
in liberalism, Rawls and Nozick Tags: distributive justice, G.A. Cohen, thought experiments
The debate with Robert Nozick over self-ownership got to the level of do we own our own eyes or are they open for harvest and redistribution to be blind. Two working eyes is a matter of genetic luck
G.A. Cohen in Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality says your right to your own body outweighs commonly used socialist principles that mandate redistribution. You are entitled to keep your eyes even if the fact that you have two working eyes is a matter of genetic luck and even if a blind person needs an eye more than you do. Good eyes are the winnings of the genetic lottery and yet
They do not immediately agree that, were eye transplants easy to achieve, it would then be acceptable for the state to conscribe potential eye donors into a lottery whose losers must yield an eye to beneficiaries who would other- wise be not one-eyed but blind.
Cohen then concluded that our real objection to an eye lottery in the actual world is not that it violates self-ownership but that people have a right to bodily integrity.
p.s. English moral philosopher, John Harris, does support a compulsory organ lottery
HT: David Gordon
Nozick’s view is that people are entitled only to what others are willing to give them as gifts or in economic exchange
28 Jun 2014 Leave a comment
in Rawls and Nozick Tags: distributive justice, justice and acquisition, justice in exchange, Robert Nozick
Nozick was correct to point out that resources are not manna the fell magically from heaven where:
If things fell from heaven like manna, and no one had any special entitlement to any portion of it…
Resources have moral histories that count. Individuals who hold resources through the scattered efforts and transactions of innumerable individuals themselves and these individual efforts and separate transactions give them a moral claim over what they have created, created, acquired and exchanged:
In the non-manna-from-heaven world in which things have to be made or produced or transformed by people, there is no separate process of distribution for a theory of distributions to be a theory of…
According to Nozick there are three sets of rules of justice, defining:
- how things not previously possessed by anyone may be acquired;
- how possession may be transferred from one person to another; and
- what must be done to rectify injustices arising from violations of (1) and (2).
A distribution is just if it has arisen in accordance with these three sets of rules. What matters is the moral history of who has what.We cannot escape that because resources do not fall’s manner from heaven.
These resources came from somewhere and from whence they came they have a moral claim over them. That claim must be treated seriously.
There are individual exchanges, in which the parties do not usually care about desert or handicaps, but simply about what they get in exchange:
No centralized process judges people’s use of the opportunities they had; that is not what the process of social cooperation and exchange are for‘
When people freely to use their property as they choose, any income and wealth distribution advocated by socialist and egalitarian liberal will be undone. Attempts to enforce a particular distributional pattern or structure over time will necessarily involve forbidding individuals from using the fruits of their talents, abilities, and labour as they see fit. As Nozick puts it:
the socialist society would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults
Rawls, Nozick and Gore Vidal on envy
25 Jun 2014 2 Comments
in Rawls and Nozick Tags: difference principle, distributive justice, envy, Gore Vidal, John Rawls, Richard Epstein, Robert Nozick
Nozick argues that one of the unchallenged assumptions made by egalitarians is that the have-nots resent the haves only to the extent that the haves possess power and wealth that were unearned. The envious man, if he cannot also possess a talent and success that someone else has prefers that the other not have it either. The envious man prefers neither have it if he does not have it.
An old Russian joke tells of a poor peasant whose better-off neighbour has just bought a cow. In his anguish, the peasant cries out to God for relief from his distress. When God replies and asks him what he wants him to do, the peasant replies “shoot the cow.”
Nozick said that what really rankles the have-nots is the haves who clearly earned their status and possessions:
It may injure one’s self-esteem and make one feel less worthy as a person to know of someone else who has accomplished more or risen higher.
Nozick said that proximity is a bigger factor in the creation of envy than just desert. Envy is local rather than global in its scope with your neighbour as the target of your envy is rather than far-off figures you don’t really know who may be far more wealthy and successful than the people you actually envy in your day to day lives:
Workers in a factory recently started by someone who was previously a worker will be constantly confronted with the following thoughts: ‘Why not me? Why am I only here?”
Whereas one can manage to ignore much more easily the knowledge that someone else has done more if one is not confronted daily with him.
The point, though sharper then, does not depend upon another’s deserving his superior ranking along some dimension. That there is someone else who is a good dancer will affect your estimate of how good you yourself are at dancing, even if you think that a large part of grace in dancing depends upon unearned natural assets.
These considerations make one somewhat sceptical of the chances of equalizing self-esteem and reducing envy by equalizing positions along that particular dimension upon which self-esteem is importantly based.
Knowing that another’s superior ranking along some dimension depends in part upon unearned natural assets does not soften this loss of self-esteem. These considerations made Nozick sceptical of the chances of equalizing self-esteem and reducing envy by equalizing positions along that particular dimension upon which self-esteem is importantly based.
Nozick said that a contraction of options through regulation, redistribution and other government mandates will only increase envy because it will inevitably result in fewer socially acceptable ways of demonstrating personal worth. With fewer options (i.e. less freedom), the perception of inequality and emotion of envy are likely to be more, not less pronounced. Nozick has point here: primitive societies were racked with envy and any good fortune good fortune has tainted by genuine luck from escaping harvest failures and disease.
Nozick said we should expand a person’s options through capitalism thereby making it more likely that he will find something that he does well and on which he can base his self-esteem. Nozick said we should expand a person’s options thereby making it more likely that he will find something that he does well and on which he can base his self-esteem.
Adam Smith wrote that matters of justice can only be resolved if people distance themselves from the grubby particulars their own positions in particular disputes. This view evolved into Rawls arguing that the justice of social institutions should be tested from behind a veil of ignorance where people are ignorant of their particular role in society and individual talents.
Rawls had no place for envy behind his veil of ignorance:
- Principles of justice should not be affected by individual inclinations, which are also mere accidents; and
- The parties behind the veil of ignorance should be concerned with their absolute level of primary social goods, not with their standing relative to others.
Rawls was nonetheless alive to the possibility is that:
The inequalities sanctioned by the difference principle may be so great as to arouse envy to a socially dangerous extent.
Rawls’ project was to outline a realistic utopia — a society that could really exist given actual human nature. Political philosophy must describe workable political arrangements that can gain support of real people as they are.
On envy, Rawls’ main fall-back was the background institutions (including a competitive economy) making it likely that excessive inequalities will not be the rule. He recognised that the income of the poorest, along with the whole of society, benefit from competition in a market economy. Richard Epstein explained how the market is important to distributive justice and social peace despite envy:
Strong competitive markets do not favour one individual over another. They work well to harness individual self-interest to generate massive amounts of wealth, widely distributed in society, through voluntary transactions. Behind the veil, rational people should the support of strong and transparent markets as their first order of business.
John Rawls in a nutshell
23 Jun 2014 Leave a comment
in Rawls and Nozick Tags: difference principle, distributive justice
Would you rather be poor in a poor society or poor in a rich society?
In the four hypothetical economies A to D below, the difference principle selects Economy C because it is the income distribution where the least-advantaged group does best.
|
Economy |
Least-Advantaged Group |
Middle Group |
Most-Advantaged Group |
|
|
A |
10,000 |
10,000 |
10,000 |
|
|
B |
12,000 |
30,000 |
80,000 |
|
|
C |
30,000 |
90,000 |
150,000 |
|
|
D |
20,000 |
100,000 |
500,000 |
|
The inequalities in economy C are to everyone’s advantage relative to equal division (Economy A), and a more equal division (Economy B).
The difference principle does not allow the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor in Economy D.
Under the difference principle, a smaller share of a bigger pie might be better than an equal share of a smaller pie.
There is no good reason for the poor to shoot themselves in the foot by demanding equality, when inequality would serve them better. Robert Nozick said that:
Political philosophers must now either work within Rawls’s theory or explain why not.
Central to the difference principle is natural talents and endowments are undeserved because they are accidents of birth.
A citizen does not merit more of the social product simply because she was lucky enough to be born with gifts that are in great demand.
The fact that citizens have different talents and abilities can be used to make everyone better off.
In a society governed by the difference principle, those better endowed with talents are welcome to use their gifts to make themselves better off, so long as they also contribute to the good of those less well endowed.
“In justice as fairness,” Rawls says, “men agree to share one another’s fate.”
For Nozick, as long as economic inequalities arise from voluntary exchange, they cannot be unjust. Nozick was content to establish the rules of the game and let the legal moves by individual players determine social outcomes.
Robert Nozick and J.K. Rowling
15 Mar 2014 Leave a comment
in Rawls and Nozick Tags: distributive justice, Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling, Robert Nozick, top 1%
Tyler Cowen summarised Robert Nozick’s Wilt Chamberlain example, thus: a bunch of poor kids pay to see Wilt Chamberlain play basketball. Wilt gets the money, the kids get to see the game. Wilt is millions of dollars richer by the end of the season and the kids poorer. Since we wouldn’t object to any one of these individual voluntary market transactions, why should we object to the resulting new distributional pattern of income and wealth? Is this new pattern unjust?
Robert Nozick argued that most notions of distributive justice would require a continual and unjustified interference in personal liberties to stop people undoing equality by trading with people such as Wilt Chamberlain. Individuals would be stopped from using the fruits of their talents, abilities, and labour as they see fit.
Isn’t it time to update and internationalise the Wilt Chamberlain example?
- A Scottish welfare mum decides to cheer herself up and write a book, going to local cafés to do so to escape from her unheated flat.
- The initial print run was 1,000 books, five hundred of which were distributed to libraries.
- J.K. Rowling is the first to become a billionaire by writing books.
- Every one of those book purchases was voluntary.
- Every one willingly gave up their money for her books.
- Is this new distributional pattern of wealth and income unjust?
G.A. Cohen twisted and turned to argue that the fruits of Rowling’s mind and willingness to work, in effect, belong to us all?!
How many more Harry Potter books would have been written if Cohen is right and his ideas applied about taxing the rich?
Are you willing to risk explaining your answer to the young and not so young fans of Rowling’s books about how it would be part of a better world for them that the additional Harry Potter books were not written?
Instead of just letting young people buy her books if they want them, we must put up with constant interference with people’s liberties to prevent injustices from J.K. Rowling’s royalties stream getting too high.
Liberty upsets patterns. Allowing individuals freely to use their equal wealth and income as they choose will inevitably destroy any distributional pattern advocated by socialists and egalitarians. If anyone evaluates how just this or that pattern of income and wealth distribution is based on how things end up, they must constantly support interferences with people’s liberties. That people having rights and resources have moral histories was central to Nozick’s attack on Rawls. Nozick rejected Rawl’s notion of resources and talents being collective assets to be assigned by a central distributor.
More and more of the top 1% of income earners these days are superstar celebrities, athletes and entertainers. J.K. Rowling and most top celebrities, athletes and entertainers get a pass on distributional injustices and growing inequality resulting from their membership of the top 1% of income earners. Why?
Philosophers do spend a lot of time arguing over whether we own our own eyes and thus can can take our eyes with us behind the veil of ignorance or whether our spare good eye instead should be left outside to be redistributed through an eye lottery to the blind. But if we own our own eyes no matter what, why not our other natural gifts, talents, good health and work ethic?
P.S. J.K. Rowling is a socialist who gave millions to British Labour. She would not be able to do that if the 83% top income tax rates of 1970s British Labour had applied. Maybe she would have been another of the legion of left-wing tax exiles such as in the 1970s?
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments