Comments (10)

• Maturin

  The trouble with "justice is equality" as a moral argument, and especially when the goal of such a philosophy is to bring about enforced equality, is very cleverly refuted in the excellent short story by Vonnegut, Harison Bergeron , written a decade before Rawls' A Theory of Justice.

  While this story represents a reductio ad absurdum argument against the idea, it does show what a logical application of the theory that justice requires equality will lead to.

  I urge everyone to read this delightful story at the link given. It had a profound influence on my moral development when I read it as a youngster nearly forty years ago, which is why it leapt instantly to mind as I read this essay.

  Published: November 13, 2008 9:22 AM

• Miklos Hollender

  There is much more to it. There are two ways of thinking about philosophy, morality and politics:

  1) thinking about acting individuals: what should you do, what shouldn't and why, it will usually lead to thinking about incentives: this is how both Libertarians and Conservatives, the "old school", think

  2) thinking about arrangements and systems and how "things should be". This is generally the Progressive way of thinking.

  The old definition of justice is "punishing bad deeds, rewarding good ones". The definition of good or bad may vary, but justice is this ACTION of punishment and reward.

  Progressives turned it from this action-oriented way of thinking into an arrangement-oriented way of thinking, which is a complete redefinition of the term. And I think such redefinitons are not OK because if you want to introduce a new concept then please introduce a new term for it, don't hijack an old one.

  Example for the old way of thinking about justice:

  Slavery is basically forced labour by innocents - it's a punishment, and it punishes innocents, therefore it's unjust.

  But condemning serious criminals to forced labour may be cruel or inhuman, but it's not unjust, because it's a punishment for an actual crime. Thus, a forced labour camp and a slave camp, while they may look very similar, are very different from a justice point of view.

  Published: November 13, 2008 10:53 AM

• Maturin

  Miklos,

  There are "new terms" for these concepts, and they are useful in clarifying our thinking.

  Our Constitution and the Declaration's statement "That all men are created equal" implies procedural justice, i.e. the law treats everyone as equals in the application of the law. This idea comes out of the classical concept of natural law, or natural justice, and the idea it contains that all should be treated fairly by the law, regardless of their station in life.

  Natural justice is embodied in the hallowed concept of due process (from wikipedia): 'Proceedings should be conducted so they are fair to all the parties - expressed in the Latin maxim audi alteram partem: "let the other side be heard".'

  However, there is also retributive justice, meaning the law should seek to punish wrong-doers and seek compensation or retribution for those wronged. This is entailed in the concept of natural law and equality in the way rules are applied to all. Wealthy and powerful persons are not above the law and must be equally punished if they have wronged someone of lesser station in life.

  But the type of justice that is implied in Rawls' and others' notions of fairness in wealth distribution is distributive justice. Distributive justice as a principle for governance exists nowhere in either the Declaration, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. It is a view of "justice" that has arisen out of Marxist and other collectivist philosophies, and is not part of the idea of natural justice. Distributive justice says it is acceptable to treat people unequally based on their station in life, in order to attempt to equalize their positions in society.

  From this understanding, we can also discover that "equality" has different meanings in these different philosophies.

  Under natural law, it would be recognized that nature, or birth, may have endowed us unequally, but that endowment should not be the basis for determining what action is just and what is not. The common good of a just society requires equal treatment as the rules of law are applied.

  Under a distributive justice philosophy, it is presumed that the common good requires unequal treatment as the rules of law are applied, in order to decrease inequality that is a consequence of birth or endowment. It presumes that being unequal by birth or endowment is inherently unfair, or "unjust," and that service of justice requires correcting that unfairness of birth or endowment.

  Coming back to your comments, natural justice is concerned with the actions of individuals, Distributive justice is concerned with the qualities of individuals, irrespective of their actions.

  Published: November 13, 2008 12:12 PM

• David Spellman

  The trouble with egalitarian philosophers is that they reduce everything to material wealth and income. "If we all made (or had) the same amount of money," they say, "we would have a just society." This is laughably absurd and such a society would be intolerable to every single member.

  Material wealth is just one of many goals people pursue. Some people want to be missionaries for their religion. Some want to create art. Some want to use their time and talents to help the poor. Some want to govern. Some want to pursue leisure and recreation. Some want to sit around writing books on philosophy. And some just want to get high or spend all their time inebriated.

  Without making a value judgment about any of these and myriad other life ambitions (being good libertarians), it is obvious that not all paths lead to material wealth. Therefore, making a social imperative of distributing material means equally will frustrate those who desire to accumulate wealth as well as those who don not. Why? Because in order to make us equal in material well being, we must force everyone to participate equally in material production. This is the crucial flaw in all social justice proposals.

  It will not work to allow everyone who wants to be an artist or missionary or philosopher or alcoholic to share equally in material wealth with those who mine, manufacture, distribute, or sell. If everyone is given the option of producing wealth or pursuing intellectual or leisure activities at an equal standard of material well-being, (almost) no one will be sweating hard in industrial pursuits. We would then have a conundrum of forcing the unlucky to work (slave labor) while the privileged follow their dreams (aristocracy).

  The only justice is to allow everyone the freedom to choose what they do and accept the "consequences." Consequences are things like money, salvation, self-image, happiness, and pleasure. Talent has nothing to do with the issue. Talent is an relative concept that can only be observed after the fact when someone is more successful at what they do than their peers. One flaw of command economies is that the authorities presume to know who has talent a priori, which is a problem equal to the calculation problem of socialism.

  If we expect "talented" workers to work hard for the benefit of society, we must reward them with what will motivate them. If that is money, then it better pay better than the alternatives. If someone wants to be a missionary or a philosopher or play video games all day long, then they need to figure out how to support themselves, not because there is anything inherently wrong with their choice, but because it is their choice and not someone else's responsibility to support them.

  In a free and just society, some people will work long hours for more money. Some will work fewer hours so they can do non-wealth generating activities that please them. The assumption that there is injustice because wealth is not evenly distributed assumes that non-wealth generating activities are valueless. And such a society will eliminate the choice to pursue such activities (which is the true injustice or coercion).

  Consider that this is exactly what happened in Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime. Intellectuals and entrepreneurs were executed and everyone else slaved in the rice paddies. Gabbling on about theories of justice and equality is amusing, but the grim reality is that actual practice is a nightmarish hell.

  Published: November 13, 2008 12:24 PM

• David Spellman

  There is a difference between a free society and an equal society. If we are free, we will not be equal. If we are equal, we will not be free. Kurt Vonnegut did more to demolish social justice in the very short story Harrison Bergeron than any intellectual could ever do to support it in hundreds of pages of drivel.

  Published: November 13, 2008 12:36 PM

• Glen

  A slave in a gilded cage is still a slave.

  Published: November 13, 2008 5:54 PM

• Inquisitor

  I fail to see what is inherently attractive in equality to begin with. If Cohen wants to make a case for it, he will have to show why I should care about it. It does not concern me in the way freedom does, and I see no necessary connection between the two (though he has tried to argue there is, but by redefining freedom).

  Published: November 13, 2008 6:37 PM

• RickC

  I just came on to say how much I enjoy the high level of discussion on this site. Some of you just now helped strengthen my own arguments on the incompatibility of freedom and equality. Thanks folks.

  Published: November 13, 2008 7:50 PM

• Curtis Edward Clark

  How is it that such educated people can believe that "luck egalitarianism" is justice? Who is to decide which part of one's ability is "luck" and which parts have to do with education and "practicing till you get to Carnegie Hall"?
  What's more, who gives anyone the right to make that decision? People with "natural" talents are usually children such as Michael Jackson at age 8, or Celine Dion at age 14; actors like Neil Patrick Harris; or sports whizzes like Michale Phelps who, at the age of 18, swam his way to eight medals (six of them gold) at the summer Olympics in Athens.

  Can you or I do what those kids do? Can you or I do what you praise G.A. Cohen for being able to do? Is he going to give all his "excessive" profits to charity, or perhaps split it with other authors who are not as talented as he is. And does he attribute his own talent to "luck"?

  Published: November 14, 2008 6:12 AM

• Maturin

  RickC,

  It is indeed a pleasure to share rational discourse.

  I have learned much from this site, and I enjoy giving back what I can.

  May the internet liberate us, as technological advance has always done before!

  Published: November 14, 2008 9:09 AM