[PEN-L:32602] Re: Re: John Rawls

["ken hanly" <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rawls uses a maximin principle to argue for his difference principle. It
does assume that people in the original position are rational
self-interested actors an assumption common in game theory and welfare
economics. The longer article is available at:
http://www.sydgram.nsw.edu.au/College_Street/extension/philosophy/rawls.htm

Actually the difference principle is used to justify inequality even though
Rawls is portrayed as an eqalitarian.
If an unequal distribution benefits the worst off more than if there were an
equal distribution then it is justified.
This could obviously be used to justify certain aspects of capitalist
distribution. It could be argued for example that it is necessary to give
the owners of the means of production a greater slice of the economic pie
than workers. If the owners are given a larger share than they will invest
etc. and the pie will be much larger and the workers will get a larger slice
than if the division were equal and there was no motivation to invest.
Hence, egalitarianism of the liberal Rawlsian sort could be made into an
apologia for capitalism .

Cheers, Ken Hanly

The argument for the difference principle

          The argument for the principles of justice is based on what Rawls
calls the "original position".  Imagine a fairly large group of people
establishing a community, perhaps in a newly discovered territory - much
like the Pilgrims who sailed on the Mayflower and settled on the east coast
of North America.  This group, we suppose, has to set up a political
constitution for their society more or less from nothing.  This constitution
will establish basic rights, duties and determine how social and economic
benefits are to be divided.  It is this purely hypothetical situation which
Rawls calls the "original position".  There are two basic assumptions.
Firstly, the people in the original position are self interested and
rational.  They are concerned only with doing the best for themselves and,
being rational, will tend to act in such a way which will in fact promote
their best interests - they want to further their interests and will act
appropriately in the light of this aim.  The second assumption concerns what
Rawls calls the "veil of ignorance".  Here's what he says:

 "Among the essential features of this situation is that no-one knows his
place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know
his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his
intelligence strength, and the like.  I shall even assume that the parties
do not know their conception of the  good or their special psychological
propensities.  The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of
ignorance.  This ensures that no-one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the
choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or  the contingency of
social circumstances.  Since all are similarly situated and  no-one is able
to design principles to favour his particular condition, the principles of
justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain."  (p.12).
So the basic idea is this:  we imagine a group of rational, self interested
people choosing the fundamental principles governing the political, social
and economic structure of their society.  However, because the original
position has been specially designed so that people are forced to choose
impartially, the principles thus chosen will be, Rawls claims, principles of
justice.  In other words, choosing behind a veil of ignorance guarantees
that the principles chosen in the original position are in fact basic
principles of justice.
             It is important to understand here that the idea is not that
certain principles are chosen because they are just, but rather that they
are just because they are chosen.  Here's an example:  Consider the
principle concerning the division of economic benefits "Whites should get
more than blacks".  This couldn't be chosen in the original position but
not, as you might think, because it's morally wrong, evil, racist and
discriminatory.  It couldn't be chosen - and hence is not a principle of
justice -  because it's irrational. If you are choosing basic principles
behind a veil of ignorance it is simply irrational to choose principles
which favour whites and discriminate against blacks, because you don't know
whether you're white or black.   So if you're out to do the best for
yourself, and don't know whether you're white or black, then you had better
not choose principles which may turn out to discriminate against you.  Thus,
to repeat, the original position creates a situation where the choosers are
forced to choose impartially.  Therefore whichever principles it is rational
to choose under these circumstances are, as a result, basic principles of
justice.  According to Rawls, the question  "What are the basic principles
of justice?"  is answered once we answer the question  "What principles
would be chosen by rational choosers in the original position?"
              As mentioned earlier, Rawls proposes two principles of
justice.  Consider now the difference principle in more detail.  How can it
be justified in the original position?  Why would a rational and self
interested person in the original position choose it?  The answer to this
lies in the principle of  "maximin".
 "The maximin rule tells us to rank alternatives by their worst possible
outcomes:
 we are to adopt the alternative the worst outcome of which is superior to
the worst
 outcomes of the others."  (p.153)

Maximin is a rule for choice under uncertainty.  If you are choosing between
alternatives A, B and C in circumstances where your information is severely
restricted, then the maximin rule says:  Look at the consequences of A, B
and C and then choose the one whose worst consequence is better than the
others.  The following table illustrates the use of maximin.

            The maximin rule tells us to choose C
                                                             since its worst
consequence, losing $20,
                                                             is better than
the worst consequences of
                                                             both A and B.

The rule is, then, to make decisions in the light of the worst that can
happen.
           Why is maximin the best strategy in the original position?
Because, according to Rawls, the original position is one of high risk,
where the various parties in it know nothing about probabilities and where
those choosing are concerned only with getting the bare minimum.   Choosing
from behind a veil of ignorance is risky and uncertain.  And since the
parties are choosing those principles which will determine their life
prospects once and for all, there is a lot at stake.  Having little
information to go on the best policy is to choose a guaranteed minimum.  A
higher risk strategy may be OK when gambling or playing the stock market.
It's a different story, however, when it's a matter of your life prospects.
When you've got a lot to lose, don't have much information to go on, then it
's a case of better safe than sorry.  Maximin is the best way.
                  Finally, the connection between maximin and the difference
principle is fairly clear.  When choosing principles governing the
distribution of economic benefits such as wages and income, and burdens such
as taxation then inequalities may be to the advantage of the least well off
and are justified only to this extent.  We can now see that the difference
principle is simply a particular application of the general rule of maximin
which governs rational choice under uncertainty.  Maximin says to choose the
alternative with the least worst outcome.  In the original position this
comes down to choosing the difference principle, where  " worst outcome" is
to be understood as  "those who are least advantaged".  So the least worst
outcome is in these circumstances that principle which is to the advantage
of the least well off - i.e. the difference principle

----- Original Message -----
From: <enilsson@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 4:47 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:32578] Re: John Rawls


> Jim D wrote,
>
> > My point was that this seems pretty individualistic. It
> >doesn't recognize that people care about the fates of
> >others even without doing the "putting myself in the
> >other guy's shoes" routine.
>
> Rawls artifical situation (where you didn't know what place you would
> have in the society being designed) doesn't necessarily have any
> relationship to the assumption that people _don't_ care about others.
>
> If people were 60% purely self interested and 40% caring about others,
> their choice of the "best" society would still be shaped by this 60%.
> Hence the need for Rawls artifical situation.
>
> By assuming people would not know where they would be in the yet-to-be-
> created society, this would (might?) eliminate all "self-interested"
> perspectives about the construction of the just society.
>
> I don't know, however, if the choices people would make in this situation
> would be based on avoidance of risk of being poor or otherwise
> disadvantaged. This might be a possible assumption about how people would
> choose in this artifical situation, but I don't think this is the only
> possible assumption about how people would act and other possible
> assumptions about human motivations would lead to the Rawlsian solution.
> The focus on avoiding risk might--or might not--be a neoclassical
> interpretation of such a situation.
>
> Eric.
>
>
>
>
>
>