Francis Aznaran
inequality – that perhaps the former is simply a result of the latter. That is to say, if A is richer then B, it may be because A or his ancestors is/were taller (and therefore e.g. a better fighter) than B. This seems extremely plausible. It is true that in the most primitive of societies (i.e. those from which our society is descended), the strongest individuals had the most influence e.g. Goliath and the Philistines, other more modern but primitive groups like Blackbeard and his pirates, modern street gang leaders etc. If we remember the previous conclusion (that we have to accept natural inequality), then it follows that we must also accept conventional inequalities that arise from natural inequalities. This may be prudent, for example if the alpha males in a troglodytic tribe who held all weaponry were also the strongest, they would be best suited to defend the tribe from predators or other tribes, i.e. they would be best suited to have this position of weapon-carrier. He surely therefore, in a sense, deserves that powerful position. However, I think it would be dangerous to extrapolate this rule to other areas. Taller of stronger individuals, for example, should not be treated better by a judiciary system. It is
just to give them those positions which would be beneficial (defender of the tribe, as in the earlier example) but unjust to give them any more than this. It is at this point that the effects of natural inequality cannot be justified. For example, if a tall or strong man A steals from or kills a shorter or weaker man, is this just? Certainly not. For although the inequality (between, for example, the man now with more food, or who is now still alive) has arisen from the natural inequality of A being taller. A has gone out of his way to create yet more inequality. In this sense I agree with Rawls economic principle: accept the existence and inevitability of inequality, but minimize its negative effects. Next, to ‘conventional’ inequality – of money, possessions and so on. Since the time of J.S Mills, the Right has attempted to justify inequalities of income by ‘marginal income theory’. IF there are discrepancies between wages of different individuals (which of course there are) it is only as a result of discrepancies of contribution. That is to say, if A earns more than B, it is only because A contributes more to society than does B. In this vein, we may like to think of a relationship between these two factors entailing direct proportionality:
income
contribution to society
Perhaps, even, we may like to think of an exponential relationship, so that contribution
to society is doubly rewarded, and thus greater incentive exists:
income
contribution to society
9
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker