 |
| These two apple pies were put out on the refreshment table at our discussion. The larger one (above) was sliced into an assortment of small and large portions. The smaller one (below) had equal-sized portions. The pies were representative of Rawls's two differing principles of distributive justice, which respectively he calls "utiliarian" and "social contract" principles. Would you have guessed that the smaller but more equal slices would prove more popular with the group? Are we just a group that likes to share in an equitable manner? |
Our 18 attendees engaged in what might be characterized as one of our more heated discussions. Both readings were concerned with the question of the equitable distribution of wealth (and power) in a democratic society. Hayek did not believe democracy to be a suitable mechanism for managing the economy. There is invariably too much dissension in the ranks of decision-making bodies for the making of important decisions.
"People will have either no definite view or conflicting views on such questions [both economic and moral], because in the free society in which we have lived there has been no occasion to think about them and still less to form common opinions about them," Hayek writes.
Rawls takes a different view. His overriding concern is with justice, which is a moral imperative. He concludes with a call to put in effect his "difference principle," "a reasonable extension of the political convention of democracy once we face up to the necessity of choosing a complete conception of justice. What is the "difference principle"? It is an acknowledgement that there will be some inequality in society, however that inequality should not work against particular individuals, it should raise up everyone.
The bulk of the essay is abstract theory. How exactly would such a theory work "in action"? Rawls writes:
"the [social] contract doctrine assumes that rational individuals who belong to society must choose together, in one joint act, what is to count among them as just and unjust. They are to decide among themselves once and for all what is to be their conception of justice. This decision is thought of as being made in a suitably defined initial situation, one of the significant features of which is that no one knows his position in society, nor even his place in the distribution of natural talents and abilities. The principle of justice to which all are forever bound are chosen in the absence of this sort of specific information. A veil of ignorance prevents anyone from being advantaged by the contingencies of social class and fortune; and hence the bargaining problems that arise in everyday life from the possession of this knowledge do not affect the choice of principles."
A fascinating construct is Rawls's "veil of ignorance." Imagine a decision-making body in which no one was aware of anyone else's position, wealth, or hereditary status.
