Will Cook
society in which two people are inherently and irreversibly inequal, no matter the choices they make. In A Theory of Justice , John Rawls explores this concept through the veil of ignorance. He says that the people who do not care about inequality in society are those who benefit from the unequal system. If we were to enter a society without any idea of who we were or our position within it, we would always choose a more equal one. He claims that when we detach ourselves from our stake in society, everyone truly wants a society that is fair, and everyone will always come to the conclusion that justice is most important. Equality becomes important once we consider the arbitrary nature of how resources are distributed and how positions are allocated. The reason equality is unfair is because of this randomness and because we all believe in a natural justice. However, more than the other writers, Rawls recognized the trade-offs that must be made between equality and liberty. Therefore he sets out two principles of justice. First, that personal liberty should be maximized and second, that inequality should only exist in order to benefit the disadvantaged. We can see that though he believes in tax and redistribution, necessary rights like voting and free speech should not be curtailed. Here he is distinct from Marx in recognizing that there is only so far we can go in trying to pursue equality. Rawls’ philosophy can best be described as egalitarian insofar as he values equality, but only as a means for justice. What is most important is the overall happiness of people and fairness of society. We can see hi taking a middle ground between Marx and Nozick by valuing ‘equality of opportunity’. This means people can still determine their own lives, but the starting point of all people must be equal.
players in a society, but that is only because people have made the decision to pay and watch him play. Equally, the idea of hard work must not be disregarded. Can it really be fair or just for someone who does no work and someone who constantly strives to improve their life to be equally placed in society? Many people seem to assume that equality is a virtue without thinking about what it actually means. What is more important than equality is giving people the freedom and liberty to live the good life as they see it. Here Nozick argues for a minimalist state and minimum government intervention. Only then will people be able to make decisions as to how they live in a way that makes everyone most happy. What is crucial here is that humans are ends in themselves, and the rights of individuals must be respected. Private property and personal freedom are paramount, and any government trying to infringe on them cannot be justified. The way in which governments attempt redistribution is taxation, but Nozick feels this is morally equivalent to stealing. It is clear that in Nozick’s eyes a good society is not an equal one, as in his ‘Utopia’ there is a minimalist state and the rights of individuals should never be infringed upon. He challenges not only the notion that equality is a fair or just value, but also the fact that trying to achieve equality will make any of us happier, any of us better off, or any of us live a more fulfilling life. But what we must question here is whether people are equal at birth. The issue of hard work may well be an important one, but it is possible for those at the bottom of society to work far harder than those at the top. This is because of the historical oppression Marx talked about, but also the inherent unfairness of the birth lottery. Inequalities exist from birth through things such as your parents’ wealth, your family, your location and your background. It cannot possibly be a good
4
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker