The book on John Rawls by Thomas Pogge is valuable contribution to the ever increasing body of professional literature regarding this late Harvard Professor and proclaimer of what Justice is. The book is overall a superbly written and presented addition to what is available. It is an excellent interpretation of Rawls’ works and has parts of the discussion which present some semblance of balance with other thinkers; here I argue the discussions on Nozick and Sandel, both also of Harvard, are very worthy additions in the discussion. Rawls writings opened up a new dialog for political scientists in the late 20th century by espousing a humanist and communitarian approach to Justice, where Justice meant the sharing of a society’s wealth, and inherently assuming that what any individual achieved was done so in the context of the contributions of all those around them.
Let me first begin by providing a summary of the Rawlsian
theory. The essence of Rawls’ approach to “Justice” is predicated on three
elements;[1]
Original Proposition: There exists a means and method for a
society to establish a Contract amongst and between them. This Contract thus
created in this society of the just is one that maximizes the return on every
transaction to the least of the individuals in the society.[2]This
approach to contractarianism is one related to individuals in a non-bargaining
environment establishing between and amongst them a “contract” to govern their
society.[3]
There are two elements contained herein.
The first is the essence of a contract, and in fact a form
of social contract between the members of society and amongst them as a whole. This
is a restatement of the classic contractarian view of a society.
The second element is that of a view towards man as a
constrained and unconstrained view of human nature. [4]
The unconstrained view states that man, individually and in
concert, has the capabilities of feeling other people’s needs as more important
than his own, and therefore we all act impartially, even when the individuals
own interest are at stake.
The constrained view is to make the best of the
possibilities which exist within the constraint.
For example, the constrained view of universal service is
one which would state that if it costs a certain amount to provide the service,
an there is a portion of the society not able to purchase the service, then
there is no overriding need to provide it if such a provision is uneconomical
and places a significant burden on the other member of society. The
unconstrained view, as a form of socialism, states that if there is the least
of us in want then they should have access to it at whatever cost.[5] Rawls
approach to this contract is one wherein the individuals in the society collect
themselves as individuals, and agree to a plan for the operations of that
society, and they accomplish behind some veil of anonymity. That is no one has
the benefit of knowing who may be getting more or less, including themselves.
First Principle of Justice: each person shall have equal rights
and access to the greatest set of equal fundamental personal liberties.
Second Principle of Justice: social and economic inequalities
are to be arranged so that they both, (i) provide the greatest benefit to the
least advantaged. and (ii) attached to positions available to each individual
under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
This latter element of the Rawlsian world is often viewed as
a Schupeterian form of socialistic control. If we were to define the public
welfare by a function as some measure W, and each individual listed as a
variable I, then the policy choice, which we would call P, is chosen such that
the welfare is maximized for the least advantaged. What this states is that we
want to maximize the society welfare subject to the constraint that no
individual suffers due to the change or execution of a policy P.
We can compare this to the utilitarian school which states
that we seek the maximization of the average welfare for all of society, sort
of a raising of all the boats approach which is not constrained on what happens
to any one individual, but to society as a whole. This approach is the basis of
the Ramsey tax policy. The Ramsey approach is Rawlsian whereas the approach of
an Adam Smith or other utilitarians is the average approach.[6]
Now let me address several of the specific sections of the
book. This is in no way inclusive; it merely highlights some of the worthwhile
parts of the book.
pp 11-15. The involvement of Rawls in WW II is a major turning
point in his life. He fought in the battle of Leyte in the Army as an enlisted
man, albeit a college graduate. His decision, frankly a wise one to not obtain
a commission, since if he had he could and most likely would have been drawn
into Korea, did place him in places of significant carnage. I had written a
book on Navy actions during Leyte, my father was there, and the brutal land as
well sea engagements left lasting change on all the men involved. Although the
author does reflect this it clearly is of interest to have explored this
seminal event on the part of Rawls and better understand how this set the path
for his future views of human existence and the relationships he would suggest
imposed on society. In my experience interviewing dozens of men who fought
there the effect was lasting and world view changing. Although presented, it
truly deserves deeper understanding.
p 20. The author presents some of the conflicts during the
60s which further made for his world view, especially the perceived draft
inequity. For example, for Rawls, he could not understand education deferments,
that is, those, say studying engineering, being deferred while those, not in
college, being drafted. In essence this was a utilitarian approach, in that it
was assumed that the draft scheme benefitted society on average better than
equality in the draft. To Rawls, the very poorest student or person should have
equal treatment. One sees a kernel of his theory of Justice emerging.
p 28. The author starts with the statement: “Justice is the
first virtue of social institutions.” My concern here is several-fold. First,
it is declaratory without a basis. Second, fails to define Justice, virtue, and
social, and I will assume I understand the term institutions. This is a Rawls
statement, the beginning of his work. The second part of the sentence missing
is “as truth is of systems of thought.” Yes Rawls uses this in almost a Marxian
declarative manner, or like Rousseau, man and his chains, but it leave one
wondering what this justice thing really is. The author does begin defining it
and his use of social justice for Rawlsian Justice is telling. For social
justice had already had a long history in Progressive movements for almost a
century by the time the book was published. Again one wonders how much of this
also influenced Rawls.
p 29. The author discusses somewhat the origin of the Theory
of Justice. One would like, as I have stated before, to have seen a more
expansive overview, one linking a bit more of past social justice thought. I
did find his analysis on this page reminiscent of Scholastic thinking and
methodology.
p 30. There is a discussion of happiness. One is left asking
what happiness is. This of course is a problem with many who approach this
area, use of terms like happiness, fairness, all too often are in the eye of
the beholder and have long histories of use by different people for different purposes.
However the author will return to this important issue later.
pp 43-44. This is an excellent introductory approach to
Rawls. The author clearly discusses the concepts of (i) consequentialism, (ii) humanism,
and (iii) normative individualism, all elements of the Rawlsian theory.
pp 48-48. The discussion on the anonymity issue, the veil of
ignorance, is reasonably well done. My only difficulty was the detailed
discussion was less than fully descriptive.
pp 53-54. Here the author does go into some detail on Rawls
own objections to happiness. This I found quite enlightening and exceptionally
well done. The two objections to using happiness are clear and to the point and
definitely worth spending some time on.
pp 67-67. This is the maximum versus average argument, it is
my argument from Mill and the Utilitarians to Rawls and the Redistributionists.
Rawls wants to consider the least of us in his use of Justice, Mill just wants
to make sure on average we are all just fine. Mill and the Utilitarians have a
more “democratic” metric, namely the group on average, and Rawls want to make
certain that we do not disenfranchise anyone.
p 75. The author has an interesting discussion regarding the
allocation of goods, redistribution and society. It is a critique of certain
elements of Rawls but clearly worth examining.
pp 178-185. The author compares Rawls to some of his
critics. He considers two at length, Nozick and Sandel. The Nozick opposition
is characterized by three objections: (i) that Rawls is a redistributionist,
and this violates fundamental property rights, (ii) that Rawls in his redistributionist
view demands a sharing on equal basis denying individual contributory
differences, and (iii) the Rawlsian view of collectivism, namely that any
single individual benefits from the contributions of all in society and thus no
individual stands alone, only on the efforts of all others in society. In
essence Rawls is an anti-individualist, and Nozick is a libertarian. This is not
exactly at total odds, but it is fairly close.
pp 185-188. Here the author does a comparison with Sandel
and his communitarian views. Although, not at as great a set of odds as with Nozick,
the author does a superb job in making these contrasts.
Overall the author provides a professional, articulate,
accurate and highly readable and accessible overview and analysis of Rawls. As
I have indicated the deeper analysis and understanding of Rawls the man would
be exceedingly useful. For example, what led him to evolve these ideas, what
resonances helped him along the way, why did he believe that he was right and
others were in error? Understanding Rawls as a philosopher I believe requires
understanding Rawls as a man. I have yet to fully see that task achieved. Yet
this book is a very valuable contribution to that effort.
[1]See
Kukathas and Pettit, Rawls, Stanford Press, 1990, for an excellent expository
of the Rawlsian theory.
[2]Indeed in
the Rawlsian world the individual posits their position and does so without any
negotiation and thus posits a position assuming that that individual will be
the least amongst players in that society. Such a position, to create justice
in that society, is a maxi-min position.
[3]This is
the same in many ways of the Social Contract envisioned by Rousseau.
[4]See
Sowell, Conflict of Visions, Basic, 2002, pp. 18-24. Sowell does present an
interesting a simple analysis of several of the issues.
[5]See
Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Harper, 1942, pp. 167-186.
Specifically, he defines socialism as; “an
institutional pattern in which the control over the means of production and
over production itself is vested in a central authority- or, as we may say, in
which, as a matter of principle, the economic affairs of society belong to the
public and not the private sector.”
[6] This is
the Baumol Willig theorem in economics which uses the first Rawlsian approach
to maximizing the return subject to a single constraint; namely that the monopolist
suffers no harm. This is of course a different twice to Schumpeterian
socialism, wherein a monopolist usurps the power of the state for its own
benefit.
Posts
