Raising Up Those Worst-Off: Justice as Fairness (John Rawls) // UTOPIAN DREAMS #2

in philosophy •  7 years ago 

Imagine yourself a spirit, about to be born as a human on Earth. It could be anywhere, and it could be any kind of body. Your birth will be completely random.

So many places. So many situations!

(1.)earth-from-spaces_1024.jpg

You could be born into a rich family in Moscow with 3 summer homes. Or an indigenous group in the Amazon. Or a refugee family fleeing their war-torn homelands. Or a trailer park in Mississippi, U.S.A.

Maybe you'll be born into a plentiful, stable situation, with at least enough to eat and be healthy. Maybe you'll be born into the kind of body and kind of mind that others value, and that maximize your chances for a life with options.

Maybe not. Right now, globally speaking, the odds are not in your favor.

(2.) world-wealth-shared1.png

More likely than not, you'll be born into poverty, and, more likely than not, you won't have much ability to change your circumstances.(3.) But maybe you'll get lucky and be born into an OK situation. Or maybe, just maybe, you'll win the lottery and be born into a crazy rich family.

You don't know!


Now imagine that you are having a conference with all of the other about-to-be-people, all looking at earth and all about to be born into bodies of random gender, ethnicity, healthiness, sexuality, and - critically - future conception of what makes a good life.

Not only that, but you'll get to choose the basic structures of society that will shape the positions you might be born into. You have as much information as you can get about human nature, and what has and hasn't worked so far for earth people.

(4.)2001.jpg

So, if you knew you were going to be born randomly, what kind of world would you want to be born into?

This thought experiment, called "the original position," was designed by John Rawls, an American political philosopher, to give a theoretical basis for the fairest possible way for choosing a society's values. Whatever this committee of spirits would agree on unanimously, according to Rawls, would be the most just society possible.

In Justice as Fairness, Rawls elaborates arguments for what this committee of spirits would agree to. It ends up boiling down to two principles:

  1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
  2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are:
    a. To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged
    b. Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity

The first principle guarantees basic political freedoms that we pretty much take for granted as foundational to democracy in the westernized world: the right to vote, right to free speech, etc.

The second principle is the radical one. It says that the the fairest social and economic structures are those that raise up the starting position of those worst-off. What's more, this group is the most important group of people to look at to maximize their situation. More important than the wealthy, and more important than the middle class. If we are to build a just society, it is quality of life for those with the most unfortunate births that we most need to maximize.

(5.)whoa.jpg

The reasoning? The spirit committee is collectively risk averse because they must reach an agreement as a group. Not knowing what they'll each be born into, they will want the worst possible outcome to be as good as it possibly can be, and to reduce the potential gamble as much as possible.

So, once equal rights and liberties are guaranteed, all of the details about structuring society will be prioritized around what is best for those worst-off. In other words, inequality of wealth and social positions are only useful to this society to the extent to which they raise up those least advantaged as much as possible.

If, given what we know about human nature, a lot of inequality of wealth and social status are necessary to create enough collective prosperity to offer the best possible standards of living to those worst-off, so be it.

But if not, we ought to have only the amount of inequalities that raises up those least advantaged.


To my mind, it seems obvious that the current experiment is failing miserably at providing the best standard of living to those worst off. Not only that, but collectively we have more than enough knowledges, technologies, and material prosperities that nobody need be born into poverty or hunger or danger.

Why is it that, despite our net affluence, some are still born into hunger, poverty, and varying forms of slavery? And how might we otherwise reorder our socioeconomic arrangements to change this?

Do you agree that the most fair society - and the one you would most want to be born into - would be the one with the least-bad worst place to be born into?

What examples of societies so far have best lived up to this criteria for fairness?

And what if, in the committee of spirits in the original position, you did not know if you would be born a human or not? How might that impact our human choices.

I'll be looking more deeply at these kinds of questions, and the practical ways we can re-arrange our lives right now to try to achieve fairness and prosperity in my series on UTOPIAN DREAMS. Here's part 1, Another World is Possible.

I'd love to hear your dreams, thoughts, critiques, examples, comparisons, too.

Keep those dreams dreamin'.

Sources

  1. Image from http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-detected-a-crack-in-earth-s-magnetic-shield

  2. From the "Outlook on the Global Agenda 2015" report by World Economic Forum, which you can find here

  3. This report, studying economic mobility in families in the USA, concluded, "It appears that families are less likely to change wealth quintiles over time, while those that do move are less likely to move very far. The reasons for these trends are not fully known, but increasing wealth inequality has contributed to the decline."

  4. Image from https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2016/01/the-worlds-best-science-fiction-chosen-by-scientists/

  5. Image from http://forum.gethopscotch.com/t/post-your-woah-moments/6516

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Very interesting thought process. I have another one for you to mull over. What if you choose to be born into the life you have? That it was not random, but a choosen life, by you, that your spirit knew you could handle and grow and thrive from if you let it. That
If you just learn to live by faith and know & BELEIVE everything will be taken care of it will be. The universe loves us and will provide for you. It is the frequency we tune into that throws things off. So the task to learn is how to align yourself with the higher frequency that will allow us to shine, thrive and be contentedly happy no matter who you are. Think of the indigenous people who do not know much of "civilized" society. We consider them poor, but they do not see themselves that way. It is in the mainstream society that we are all being plugged into that's is screaming MONEY, MONEY MONEY!!! IS ALL THAT MATTERS at us. But it only matters to that small percentage and the majority can make a louder message if we learn to tune into the frequency of love, happiness, equality, generousity, sharing & caring and most importantly FAITH. Thanks for the post and welcome to steemit. Come on over @monkimo and meet us here ⬇️
https://steemit.com/family/@monkimo/jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none

Beautiful family, @monkimo!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I dig your thought experiment. On a practical level, I think it is absolutely needed in this time. Each one of us is needed, and we each need to embrace a story that honors one's uniqueness and special gifts, and helps one feel called to live in service to others .

On the other hand, I think that the story "the universe loves us and will provide for you" is a very privileged story to be able to hold. I'm glad that you have this outlook, and that your family benefits from it. And I think you're lucky... I wish all people had that.

Where I think this story can be dangerous is that it has the potential to be used in a manipulative way, or to minimize or invalidate the very real inequalities that exist in our world...

I mean, even in our seemingly very affluent country, 1 in 6 children worry about their next meal. For those born into the roughest of situations, unsafe places, and/or without access to sustenance, and/or without access to positive role models, it seems they will have to get very lucky to come to a place where they can embrace this story.

That's why I think the thought experiment of the original position and justice as fairness are so important. Because it is how much of a chance for health and happiness that these folks, the least privileged, have, that turns out to be the measure of a society's success in providing social justice.

Your point that measuring "wealth" or happiness by money is way inadequate is well-taken. There are so many other measures of a happy life, you don't necessarily need to have money to have good food, good company, good life, and measuring by "wealth" definitely misses this. If we could collectively utilize a better way to measure "wealth," or "who is worst-off," maybe we'd make some real traction in this very important issue, and maybe we'd be better at building long-term solutions for providing the best lives for absolutely everyone.

This post received a 1.9% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @jaredwood! For more information, click here!

Oh wowed! First time someone's done that on my comment. Thanks man!

Consider my position in life before I say this: I am not wealthy and generally barely make due.

I dislike the idea of any sort of wealth redistribution. Strife and poverty are necessary parts of a society based around human nature. Welfare spawns laziness and a lack of ambition. As a race, we would slowly drift off into senility in such a situation.

Leave me the option to predate on my fellow man, and for him to do the same. The smart and the strong should thrive, not everyone.

Interesting response, and a viewpoint I think shared by many, though perhaps not as many would be so brave to be explicit and open about it. I appreciate you naming your awareness about your theory of human nature.

Personally, I'm curious to unpack why "welfare spawns laziness and lack of ambition." What are the assumptions underpinning this claim, and what do you mean by "laziness" and "lack of ambition?"

If, for instance, my ambition is centered around connecting with those around me and wanting to benefit them, then that would not wane according to my own welfare; it would only decrease if everybody else's welfare was high, in which case this criteria for "justice as fairness" would be met and I would be happy.

While I agree that perhaps some amount of inequality is likely necessary, the question those in the original position above are asking is "how much?" The agreement they came up with is "only enough so that the poorest are the least poor they can be."

The book this idea comes from is HUGE, so even though my post was super long about it, I left a lot out. Rawls also gives arguments for why the spirit council in the original position would favor principles leading to a stable society, and that this principle of raising those lowest as high as possible would effectively do that.

As far as reality today goes, I think right now we're seeing globally that people are really rejecting the inequalities we have today, like in the demonstrations at the G20 right now in Hamburg.

Personally, I'm curious to unpack why "welfare spawns laziness and lack of ambition." What are the assumptions underpinning this claim, and what do you mean by "laziness" and "lack of ambition?"

It has become obvious that when people have something handed to them, they won't bother trying to learn how or work hard to get it themselves. Nature loves competition.

As an example, look at big business when they are the only part of a market. With nothing to compete with, they simply stagnate on innovation.

Most of mankind's greatest advances came through war or technology stemming from war-based innovation.

I think you could certainly have structures that encourage a competitive business environment without having 1/6 kids in the USA wondering where their next meal is coming from, poverty and homelessness at the rates we have them, or minority oppression the way we have them.

As for what happens "when people have something handed to them," and how that relates to those worst-off in society, I think we'll get some more information about that in the next couple years as more places are beginning to experiment with universal basic experiment.

"Nature loves competition" is an assumption about nature - and about human nature - that may or may not be true. Personally, I'm not convinced, and it is at least also true that "nature loves cooperation," and that both innovation and the health of any ecosystem result also from cooperation, symbiotic and synergistic relationships.

Interesting :)

What do you think about it?