Egalitarianism is False
To agree or not to agree with Paul Viminitz? That is the question. Paul Viminitz talks about 6 moral intuitions that “have muddled our thinking about distributive justice”(Artificial Prudence, p13). Viminitz talks about moral intuitions and political arrangements share a similarity of game theory and that “distributive justice is arguably the largest part of morality and politics” (A.P., p13). Egalitarianism is the moral intuition that I will talk about.
Egalitarianism says that every person should have the same level of material
goods and services. This principle is justified on the grounds that people are owed equal respect and that equality in material goods and services is the best way to give effect to this ideal of equal respect. But a few problems are created from this, one of the problems is how to measure these materials and specify them. A way of solving this could be, giving everyone the same of everything in the same amounts (1 car, 2 televisions, 5 kiwis, 1 watermelon, etc) but here we go again another problem is made by this solution because there are many other services and material goods that will make other people better off and at the same time won’t make anybody worse off. I will be happier if I got 6 watermelons because I don’t like kiwis that much while others may prefer 6 kiwis instead of the 1 watermelon. So everybody will for sure want to trade something off in order to get something back they will be better off with. So by distributing the same material goods in equal amounts will make people worse off instead of making them better off materially. So trying to solve this is very problematic.
Another problem that arises from this is that when will these material goods be given...
... middle of paper ...
...will likewise be available to her co-player. But these conditions are never satisfied by the real human condition”( A.P. p16).
So would it be in my self-interest to cooperate with people in order to get a greater cooperative dividend? Well why bother because if I can chop down 5 coconuts from a tree the other guy only 3 and together we get 10 and then we are to split the coconuts by having 5 each what was the point of cooperating with this person when I alone already can get 5 coconuts. And since humans are not born equally physically and don’t think the same way Egalitarianism is false.
Bibliography:
References:
1. Viminitz, Paul. Philosophy of Game Theory, 1st Installment, Artificial Prudence. University of Lethbridge. January, 2001.
2. Nielsen, Kai, ‘Radical Egalitarian Justice: Justice as Equality’ Social Theory and Practice, 1979, 209-226.
This investigation plans to explore the multiple political parties that existed during the French Revolution and how their doctrines reflected that of the citizens of the French Empire, from 1789 to 1799. This paper will focus upon the ideas of egalitarianism, or the belief in equality.
An answer to the puzzle will be found in solutions that are in equilibrium. An equilibrium in informed rational self-interest, or a Nash equilibrium, is any solution to the problem whereby neither party could do better by altering its position. However, this is a general and broad definition. Further stipu...
In this paper I will be discussing George P. Fletcher’s “paradigm of reciprocity”. I will discuss what two issues the paradigm specifies and how they are treated by the paradigm. I will assess how the treatment of the issue is different from that of the wealth maximization approach. I will also look at how the paradigm makes sense of both fault and strict liability. Lastly in this paper I will discuss why I agree with Fletcher’s stance and a criticism one might have for it.
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 266.
Robert Nozick in the excerpt from his book Anarchy, State and Utopia presents his ideas on why a government in power should not spread the wealth of the state among all of the residents. Nozick writes mainly in response to John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice in which Rawls focuses on the idea of the state working towards improving financially the lives of those that are in the worst conditions. To explain his point of view Nozick expounds on various concepts that provide a better understanding of the procedure that lead to him arriving at the conclusion that he did. This includes the entitlement theory of Nozick. In this paper I will explain how Nozick reaches the conclusion that redistributive justice should not take place along with a detailed look at the various major concepts of his theory. In addition, I will also provide my view on what John Rawls’s argument against Nozick’s theory might be. Finally, I will explain why I agree with John Rawl’s theory and present detailed reasoning.
Institutions are crucial for our society to be successful because it is a social and academic construction of a community in that institutions help us interact with each other and promote scientific research and findings, regardless of the cultures and values that each individual believes in; without institutions, there would be no order and stability in society. However, in the essay “Rent Seeking and the Making of an Unequal Society” by Joseph Stiglitz, Stiglitz disagrees by arguing that institutions actually prevent scientific research to evolve into scientific discoveries because monopolists and dominant forms such as Microsoft suppress innovation; however, this statement is unconscionable
John Rawls is considered one of the most important political philosophers of the 20th century. His most famous work is on his theory of justice, which was later made into the book Justice as Fairness edited by Erin Kelly. In his work, Rawls sets out to discover what set of principles would best govern a just society. Rawls looks at the idea of a social contract, a concept first developed by philosophers John Locke and Kean Jacques Rousseau. Rawls, however, sets out to revive the social contract to create a realistic utopia that embodies the fair principles of justice. This approach holds that the society is in some sense an agreement among all those within the society on what constitutes a just society. Rawls believes that the fairest society would agree on his two principles of justice. Through his work, Rawls illustrates how and why a fair society would come to agree on these fair principles of justice, and at exactly what restrictions and presuppositions.
Baker, H. (2012). Reflections on Social Justice, Government, and Society. Journal Of Markets And Morality, 15(1), 143-159.
1) In this statement, “Any just society must ensure that whatever the property ownership arrangement in that society, they enable all people to meet their needs,” both the libertarianism and utilitarianism reject this egalitarian criterion of a just society.
John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice presents an ideal society based on several simple principles. While the system Rawls suggests is well constructed, it is not without its flaws. I will now attempt to explain Rawls’ idea of Justice as Fairness and explain where the system fails.
system of economic distribution. It is an issue that we have lived through, and with, our entire
Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition.
In the case of punishment, justice must be upheld, and to be just, one must be fair. It appears intuitively clear that it would be unjust to punish someone who stole a packet of gum from a grocery store with a death sentence. Similarly, it would be unjust to treat a murderer to just a few years in prison. Why is this? It seems that in order to be considered fair, the punishment for a crime must be deemed proportional – that the criminal is given what they deserve. This entails Pojman’s (2006) theory of the symmetry, detailing that when someone performs a negative act, they are worthy of blame or punishment proportionate to their initial act. Similarly, when someone performs a positive act, they are worthy of praise or reward, proportionate to their initial act. This is undeniably a matter of desert and explains why it follows that the previous cases could not justly be considered equals (Lenta and Farland, 2008). Some argue, that qualifying what level of punishment one deserves is in and of itself unjust. In this way, judged moral worth, it is argued, is placed second to the carrying out of punishment (Mills, 2004). An underlying issue in this argument is known as the epistemological problem (Pojman, 2...
In his theory of justice, Rawls aims to introduce a notion of justice that draws on both Kantianism and Utilitarianism, in that state institutions must universally apply to the notion that they are to respect individual humanity while being consistently conscious of the consequences that their ac...
John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice holds that a rational, mutually disinterested individual in the Original Position and given the task of establishing societal rules to maximise their own happiness throughout life, is liable to choose as their principles of justice a) guaranteed fundamental liberties and b) the nullification of social and economic disparities by universal equality of opportunities, which are to be of greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society , . Rawls’ system of societal creation has both strengths and weaknesses, but is ultimately sound.