John Rawls was the most influential political philosopher of the twentieth century. Rawls claimed that no one deserves to be rewarded for being lucky. What does it mean to be lucky?
Brilliant piece - my only argument, and a small one at that, is that if a person takes the risk to buy a lottery ticket surely they deserve their winnings if their numbers come up. The corollary would be if their numbers did not come up then they do not deserve to lose their money (something that I believe you would not advocate). Totally agree re meritocracy.
I think the main problem with the 'veil of ignorance' thought experiment is that it ignores the development of the society long term.
If a really egalitarian and redistributive society achieves much less technological progress and growth in wealth than a society where people are rewarded for their contributions, then the second is probably preferable (obviously, wealth is not the only important thing, it's only an example).
However, someone can *choose* to work hard, but they cannot choose to inherit a farm or gain lots of IQ points. I agree that genes and social environment will have some influence over someone’s ability to work hard, ie put in a lot of effort, however I definitely believe that someone who has a tomato farm because of hard work deserves it much more than someone who inherited it or has a very high ‘farming’ IQ,
Thank you for the article - I found it interesting!
Thank you, Bob! I do agree that people who inherit their farm did nothing to deserve it. Interesting thought that the person with farming ability doesn't deserve it because they didn't choose their ability. I'd counter that maybe they didn't choose to be smart but they did choose to spend their smarts on tomatoes.
Life is mostly luck. You're lucky if you're born with intelligence, good looks, wealth; you 'make' luck by hard work; you can be lucky by being in the right place at the right time ; conversely by not being in the wrong place at the wrong time. How can anyone say anyone else deserves or doesn't deserve something. Who are we to judge?
If life is a spiritual journey, which I believe it is, then God is the judge. If we live many lives, which I believe we do, then you don't know the context of what you're trying 'fix' when you tilt the game in someone's favour. God made the game and knows what should happen. If you're trying to re-write the rules without understanding the game, then that is the height of arrogance.
Great! However, I don't think that egalitarians can be dismissed so easily :-)
You state that "Rawls claimed that rational people would naturally prefer and egalitarian society where everyone has access to the same resources regardless of their talents or abilities." Rawls is wrong on that last part. I agree with you that Theresa's talent and Miguel's hard work entitles them to the fruits of their labours (sorry, had to say it!).
However, just because Rawls goes too far with his base desert, does not mean that egalitarianism is wrong. Egalitarianism has laudable aims and those can be achieved without stripping resources from those who have earned them.
There are two main types of egalitarianism. One is providing people with equal access to opportunity, as Rawl's equality principle states. However, another approach to egalitarianism is striving to achieve equal outcomes. The latter has received quite a bit of interest in the past few years because it means distributing resources unequally, but this is closest to what Anderson and others advocate, with 'democratic egalitarianism'. In this world, those who give up high paying jobs to become carers, firefighters who have choosen a risky career, or those who simply have bad luck (such as a disability) would receive additional assistance from the State when needed. This sounds right to me. Naturally, this leads to accusations of 'welfare scroungers' by the Daily Mail and questions about where the money comes from. The answer to the first is to shoot the Daily Mail journalists, but the second is trickier. Does Theresa get to keep her tomatoes?
My view is that, sure she can keep her tomatoes, but if she wants to live in society where people are well-educated, healthy, and secure, then she can give up some of them to the State. Ultimately, a meritocracy and (some form of) egalitarianism are not mutually exclusive.
I agree that carers and firefighters do valuable work and deserve to be rewarded. In an ideal meritocracy, they would be highly rewarded. That does raise the question of how to determine rewards. I don't think markets necessarily do the greatest job but I can't immediately think of a better way. I'll think about that some more.
In a society as rich as ours, we should be able to provide for the basic needs — food, shelter, education, health care — for everyone, including people with an illness or disability or just bad luck. But, beyond basic needs, I think we'll end up with a better society if hard-working, talented people are rewarded more.
I do agree that highly rewarded people should contribute to society but the goal should be to make sure everyone has their basic needs met and to make sure everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed (limited only by their ability and their propensity to work hard). It's not to strive for equal outcomes, the goal of egalitarianism.
I agree that hard-working, talented people should be rewarded more. Regarding your conclusion, then I am not sure that equal outcomes are a bad thing, but I guess it depends on which outcomes we're talking about. In terms of money acquired through merit, then you are quite right - inequality is fine, and to be fair that was the topic of your piece :-) I had gone off-piste a bit and was thinking about things like access to justice, education and healthcare.
I interpret Rawls as saying that we should strive for equality — but here are some suggestions for where we fall short.
I don't think we should strive for equality at all. Beyond the basics (and accepting equality of opportunity), we should explicitly strive to reward people for merit.
Mike Huemer is another Substacker (in addition to being an academic philosopher) who has been arguing for a while that Rawls used awful reasoning: https://fakenous.substack.com/p/rawls-problem-of-stability
Thank you! I've read a few of his posts, but not this one. Checking it out now!
It turns out that I was already a subscriber. I just hadn't gone far enough into his back catalogue! I have lots of reading to do!
Brilliant piece - my only argument, and a small one at that, is that if a person takes the risk to buy a lottery ticket surely they deserve their winnings if their numbers come up. The corollary would be if their numbers did not come up then they do not deserve to lose their money (something that I believe you would not advocate). Totally agree re meritocracy.
Good point, James! Thank you!
I think the main problem with the 'veil of ignorance' thought experiment is that it ignores the development of the society long term.
If a really egalitarian and redistributive society achieves much less technological progress and growth in wealth than a society where people are rewarded for their contributions, then the second is probably preferable (obviously, wealth is not the only important thing, it's only an example).
I totally agree. If I ever do a PhD, this is what I will write my thesis on.
However, someone can *choose* to work hard, but they cannot choose to inherit a farm or gain lots of IQ points. I agree that genes and social environment will have some influence over someone’s ability to work hard, ie put in a lot of effort, however I definitely believe that someone who has a tomato farm because of hard work deserves it much more than someone who inherited it or has a very high ‘farming’ IQ,
Thank you for the article - I found it interesting!
Thank you, Bob! I do agree that people who inherit their farm did nothing to deserve it. Interesting thought that the person with farming ability doesn't deserve it because they didn't choose their ability. I'd counter that maybe they didn't choose to be smart but they did choose to spend their smarts on tomatoes.
Life is mostly luck. You're lucky if you're born with intelligence, good looks, wealth; you 'make' luck by hard work; you can be lucky by being in the right place at the right time ; conversely by not being in the wrong place at the wrong time. How can anyone say anyone else deserves or doesn't deserve something. Who are we to judge?
If life is a spiritual journey, which I believe it is, then God is the judge. If we live many lives, which I believe we do, then you don't know the context of what you're trying 'fix' when you tilt the game in someone's favour. God made the game and knows what should happen. If you're trying to re-write the rules without understanding the game, then that is the height of arrogance.
Great! However, I don't think that egalitarians can be dismissed so easily :-)
You state that "Rawls claimed that rational people would naturally prefer and egalitarian society where everyone has access to the same resources regardless of their talents or abilities." Rawls is wrong on that last part. I agree with you that Theresa's talent and Miguel's hard work entitles them to the fruits of their labours (sorry, had to say it!).
However, just because Rawls goes too far with his base desert, does not mean that egalitarianism is wrong. Egalitarianism has laudable aims and those can be achieved without stripping resources from those who have earned them.
There are two main types of egalitarianism. One is providing people with equal access to opportunity, as Rawl's equality principle states. However, another approach to egalitarianism is striving to achieve equal outcomes. The latter has received quite a bit of interest in the past few years because it means distributing resources unequally, but this is closest to what Anderson and others advocate, with 'democratic egalitarianism'. In this world, those who give up high paying jobs to become carers, firefighters who have choosen a risky career, or those who simply have bad luck (such as a disability) would receive additional assistance from the State when needed. This sounds right to me. Naturally, this leads to accusations of 'welfare scroungers' by the Daily Mail and questions about where the money comes from. The answer to the first is to shoot the Daily Mail journalists, but the second is trickier. Does Theresa get to keep her tomatoes?
My view is that, sure she can keep her tomatoes, but if she wants to live in society where people are well-educated, healthy, and secure, then she can give up some of them to the State. Ultimately, a meritocracy and (some form of) egalitarianism are not mutually exclusive.
I agree that carers and firefighters do valuable work and deserve to be rewarded. In an ideal meritocracy, they would be highly rewarded. That does raise the question of how to determine rewards. I don't think markets necessarily do the greatest job but I can't immediately think of a better way. I'll think about that some more.
In a society as rich as ours, we should be able to provide for the basic needs — food, shelter, education, health care — for everyone, including people with an illness or disability or just bad luck. But, beyond basic needs, I think we'll end up with a better society if hard-working, talented people are rewarded more.
I do agree that highly rewarded people should contribute to society but the goal should be to make sure everyone has their basic needs met and to make sure everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed (limited only by their ability and their propensity to work hard). It's not to strive for equal outcomes, the goal of egalitarianism.
I agree that hard-working, talented people should be rewarded more. Regarding your conclusion, then I am not sure that equal outcomes are a bad thing, but I guess it depends on which outcomes we're talking about. In terms of money acquired through merit, then you are quite right - inequality is fine, and to be fair that was the topic of your piece :-) I had gone off-piste a bit and was thinking about things like access to justice, education and healthcare.
I interpret Rawls as saying that we should strive for equality — but here are some suggestions for where we fall short.
I don't think we should strive for equality at all. Beyond the basics (and accepting equality of opportunity), we should explicitly strive to reward people for merit.