pinkfloydpsw's Blog

Introduction

Egalitarianism is the idea that there can be made fairness, not the idea that there is fairness. “Life is not fair” a statement that may come from parent to child when explaining why they must put up with a situation just because that’s the way it is. In this essay I will focus on luck egalitarianism, a theory that distribution of wealth (categorised in many differing ways) can be made fairer by discounting the naturally occurring predispositions or handicaps that advantage or disadvantage the individual and bases acceptable inequality solely as the result of personal choice. I will build toward this theory then examine what it says and why it is appealing, I will examine criticisms of it and conclude with my own thoughts on how this theory is applicable or relevant today.

Of property

It seems attractive to be able to say that there are founding principles of just distribution but in the works of Hobbes (Lloyd et al, 2014) and Rousseau (Zerzan, 2005) we find diametrically opposed positions taken on the state of man in a pre-distribution society so the question arises of how resources are first justly distributed? Locke (Tuckness, 2012) attempts to establish a principle of possession through ownership justly gained as a result of labour and this seems acceptable until it is contended by social theorist Proudhon (Proudhon, 1840) that ownership of land resources is not simply a matter of rightful initially-purposed ownership by an individual but a theft, in perpetuity, from the subsequently excluded populous. Proudhon does not attack Locke’s theory of labour made wealth but rather other ideas of right whereby resources are granted ,inherited, gained by means other than labour or simply owned without use; he attacks the idea that the right of property as proposed by Locke is inalienable in that this right is not comparable to the rights of liberty or security as they are such that they cannot be compromised by economic means, his is also the position that there is no general obligation to accept the right of property other than that of made so through labour and if it becomes the case that labour ceases then this ownership should cease as well.

Luck Egalitarianism

Luck egalitarianism grows out of John Rawls’s position on deserved or acceptable inequalities that are not morally arbitrary; Rawls proposed that ideas of equality cannot be based on factors that the individual has no control of such as their natural abilities or class at birth. Rawls proposes that inequalities in society are naturally occurring and does not set out as Proudhon does to destroy the idea of property as a falsehood but rather to accept that, within the social contract, advantages and disadvantages will arise and that there are means of intervention that can morally correct the resulting disparity but not to the point of complete equality because equality is not productive or progressive. Rawls’s is a duty based theory of moral behaviour where he proposes an intervention by the state into the workings of the economy in an effort to alleviate the suffering of the least able or least advantaged; his difference principle states that only those social and economic inequalities will be permitted that work to the benefit of the least well off (Sandel, 2011). This may make Rawls sound like a utilitarian but he is not, he believed that given the same choices as the Rawlsian liberal the utilitarian would accept disadvantage upon themselves for the ideal of the greater good whereas the individual would not; using a thought experiment called the Original Position (Behind the Veil of Ignorance) Rawls postulates a situation where individuals build a society without the knowledge of how that society will best suit themselves, by doing this he envisages a situation whereby the individual will be reluctant to create advantages they may not benefit from or disadvantages they may be victims of; this forces the created society to have artificial barriers at both the bottom and the top to prevent the injustice of the prejudicial constructs it would contain if everyone built with an eye to their own natural advantages. For Rawls a society should not be based on advantages gained through traits that are morally arbitrary (lucky).

Liberals

Libertarians such as Robert Nozick (Pike, 2011) argue that distributive justice after the fact by intervention of the state is itself unjust; in accepting Locke’s theory of property by labour there is no reason, morally, for the state to redistribute the wealth of an individual against their will. In Rawls work we find a counter to this argument that I find strongly discredits Nozick’s position in that it relies on a moral judgement that is arbitrary, the right of property by labour in a capitalist society is determined by market forces that may advantage some forms of labourer over others and some investments over others and may cause them to have greater wealth and property as a result but the conditions for this to be true do not arise by their own individual doings, they are simply the beneficiaries of this situation and therefore are not morally contingent. Nozick may be right morally that there is no right for the state to take from the individual but he is not right societally unless society is itself moral and since market economies tend not to create equality (rather its opposite) I disagree with his position. I further disagree to Nozick’s adoption of the right to self-ownership as an argument against the veil of ignorance in that as an explanation of the ultimate and inalienable right of sovereignty of the self it fails to address the social contract it is supporting; if a person can be said to be trading off certain rights and privileges so as to be part of a system of social cohesion and that same person can be said to become part of a society that has laws and the right to define and legislate the social and economic world then it follows that the same person cannot then make claim to the benefits of that construct yet fail to recognise how they are obligated to it. Outside of direct human labour upon soil there is no separation of gain from the constructed social body that provides the conditions for gain through interaction; this liberal position is flawed in that it argues with the conditions for its own possibility. The major problem with Nozick’s sort of liberalism is that it allows us to think that the poor are poor because they are lazy, because they have brought poverty upon themselves by their choices.

Thomas Sowell (Sowell, 2012) points out that “almost nowhere in human society do you find people evenly represented” in his attempt to show that American society can be statistically proven to be less advantageous to its coloured people without having any legislation that makes it inherently or intentionally so, his is an attempt to show that under the circumstances where there are no barriers to progression based on the luck of nature there may still be barriers present from other factors such as education and economy. Sowell’s insight is that government reparations in the social world create an unfair persecution of the current benefactors of that world that they do not deserve as their actions have not been intentionally prejudicial.

Synthesis

“I argue that government lacks the moral title to coerce unless it respects the dignity of its subjects” (Dworkin, 2012)

Ronal Dworkin’s attempt to synthesise luck and choice based distribution (Pike, 2011) attempts to artificially positively bias the socially unlucky individual whilst leaving in place the capacity for inequality to arise purely from choice. On paper this is a good plan but in reality it relies on identifying aspects of a person’s life where they have had choices beyond the nature of their socioeconomic status. Dworkin and other theorists that contend inequality through choice is justifiable, such as the results of a choice not to work leaving the individual with no obligation from the state for support, miss the point of certain interventions from the state; it is not always the case that the state takes social measures on behalf of the individual but toward the betterment of the masses, capitalist economies must have consumers so the masses must have money and states must have able bodied peoples to fight wars or not overburden state provided systems such as the NHS. So it follows that coercive measures by the state are regardless of choice but by necessity, people who choose not to work are still entitled in Britain to minimal support because the cost of not doing so was surmised to be higher than the cost of doing so by the Liberal government of 1906.

This schism from Classical Liberalism to New Liberalism in the early 20th century was an attempt at democratic equality and for anyone who has been a beneficiary of the welfare state (which is just about everyone apart from the very wealthy) it is a hard measure to argue against and a fundamental of British political wrangling. Elizabeth Anderson’s criticism of luck egalitarianism centres on the ideas of abandonment and oppression through forcing citizens to take responsibility for their own choices, she contends that luck egalitarians cannot solve the problem of who deserves what when making choices because there are always other choices that could have worked out better with hindsight (Anderson, 1999). Hers is a position of democratic equality gained through rights rather than choices where the determining factor of obligation by the state to the individual is simply that the individual is a citizen of the state and that the state has a parental responsibility to provide social justice for its citizens. This takes us all the way back to Plato’s Crito (Cottingham, 2008) and the problem of establishing and defining the obligations between the citizen and the state.

Conclusion

This essay focussed on distributive justice and luck egalitarianism which lead me from the original work of Locke and Rousseau to Rawls and Nozick and their political theories. I looked at the justifications for inherent inequality within society and examined the right of government to intervene in the social and economic lives of citizens. Taking the positions of prominent social theorists I have examined the effects of luck in ideas of fairness and concluded that each position has merit in itself but none are sufficient in explanation or action as to provide a justified and unified theory of fair distribution on their own.

This all looks like circular argument as it relies on establishing, concretely, one position to enable another, (i.e. premise is proved by conclusion only if conclusion is established following acceptance of premise), but it is in the plural nature of the appealing factors and criticisms of each position that we find the notion that there is necessarily a need for justice at all; In many cultures and political systems the social contract is established and perpetuated by forces other than justice or fair distribution. What all the political positions I have written about in this essay do have in common is that they seek to establish principles of egalitarianism, an explanation of why certain systems of distribution are desirable, whether fair or otherwise, in a democratic liberal state. Interaction with and benefits from the democratic state are a trade off and this trade off is the social contract so it is not surprising that measures of balancing inequality are a trade off also, pluralist but plausible.

Luck is a factor that is accounted for but if it is the focus of theory for creating fairness it cannot, as has been proven by its critics, be the only theory in play – therefore it is not plausible on its own.

Paul Simon Wilson

Ref:

Lloyd, S.A and Sreedhar, S. (Spring 2014). Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy. [ONLINE] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/#StaNat. [Last Accessed 4th May 2015].

Zerzan, J. (2005). ‘Rousseau: Discourse on the Origins of Inequality’ in Against Civilization: Readings and Reflections. Washington US, Feral House.

Tuckness, A. (2012). Locke’s Political Philosophy. [ONLINE] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#

Proudhon, P.J. (1840). What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Rights and of Government. [ONLINE] Available at: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen.pdf

Sandel, M. (2011). What’s a fair start?. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-08/#watch

Pike, J., (2011). ‘Plato and the variety of arguments for political obligations’ In: Pike J (ed), Political Philosophy. 1st ed. 2011: Milton Keynes pp.31-33.

Sowell, T. (2012). Thomas Sowell dismantles Feminism and Radicalism in under 5 minutes. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo

Dworkin, R. (2012). Ronald Dworkin: Equality. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrDJAm09F-E

Pike, J., (2011). ‘Justice and Equality’ In: Political Philosophy. 1st ed. 2011: Milton Keynes pp.130-133.

Anderson, E. (1999) ‘What is the point of Equality?’, Ethics, Vol. 109, pp. 287-337

Plato, (2008). ‘Our Obligation to Respect the Laws of the State’ In: Cottingham J. (ed), Western Philosophy, an Anthology. 2nd ed. 2008: Oxford pp.623-626.