An Extension of John Rawls two Principles of Justice

I was questioned by a person on what I had written in the About Me section on the side bar about the following sentence:

" I do feel very against total equality on the grounds of it being a impossible goal and though it may seem like a fair system, it in fact may even be perceived as an unfair system. "

I was hoping that someone would ask me about this because it is a very controversial topic and a very important one as well. So, I promised this person that my next post would answer this question.
So I have written a small “paper” answering this question. However it is important to keep an open mind when you start reading it, because what I may write may come out as making perfect sense and on the other hand, it may cause a clash with someone else’s views.

What I do is look at different views from different thinkers about this subject and try to cooperate my opinions at the end. My basic opinion is truly that total equality is unjust and impossible to achieve. Instead, people should have access to basic resources and social goods and be limited to equality of opportunity (even though in practice not even this is totally achievable). This would in my opinion allow for a equilibrium of fairness between social classes and would not discriminate against neither the people at the top of the ladder nor at the bottom. I think this equilibrium will allow for a practical solution instead of a solution based on ideals which in practice doesn’t allow for a system that works. Hence the title that I have given to my paper is :

To What Extent, if any, is Liberty Compatible with a Just Distribution of Social Goods? How can a just distribution be attainable?

What exactly is a just distribution of goods? Should one explain this with John Rawl’s two principles of justice that Rawl’s argues to be the basis for a just society, or explain just distribution with the contrasting views of prioritarians like Derek Parfit? Justice is a whole other complex debatable matter therefore this essay will define a just distribution in a complete egalitarian manner by classifying ‘just distribution’ as ‘equal distribution’ in the sense of total equality. If an equal distribution is put into practice, various outcomes would be expected as a result; there would be a huge liberty shift in the masses. One would expect the liberty of the worst off to be emancipated while the liberty of the originally better off to be constrained and to a high level stripped away. There is hence a conflicting issue with liberty and this so called just distribution. Is liberty compatible to an egalitarian distribution? The first part of this paper will demonstrate the views of those who think that it is compatible, and the second half will reveal the thoughts of those who think that it isn’t compatible. It will hopefully become apparent that a just distribution in the sense of total egalitarian distribution is not compatible.

Before this debate can be initiated it is important to explain what exactly this total egalitarian distribution requires. Total equality traditionally referred to equality in every sense of the word- from equality of income and liberties to equality of beauty and talent. This soon lost its power for this regime went as far as advocating that if one was more beautiful than the average person, one would have to hide under a mask and if one were talented one would have to restrain from using the talent . However, in turn it also meant that those disabled would have to be given something in return for compensation. Since the world is made up of unique people with different natural endowments and disabilities a veil of ignorance has been advocated where equality ignores such attributes and total equality today refers to total equality of resources and social goods. It is this type of total equality that I shall refer too.

It has been argued by many, like Robert Nozick and John Rawl’s that the majority of the population would benefit from an equal distribution of public goods. Arguments range from the belief that wealth enhances freedom by stripping away limitations caused by the lack of money, to a more radical suggestion that freedom is compatible with an equal distribution even if the freedoms of the rich are diminished because equal distribution aims to support the common good and hence the majority of the human population.

An equal distribution of social goods, like proposed by G. A. Cohen will bring more freedom to the worst off in society. In fact, Cohen argues that unlike other endowments, like beauty and knowledge, “money confers freedom, rather than merely the ability to use it” . This is the view held by other socialists and modern day liberals that believe that in capitalist societies, with unjust distribution of wealth there are many limits to the underprivileged; this lack of freedom that a high percentage of people enjoy can be illustrated with a extreme example of homeless people, who are “increasingly prohibited from performing necessary and essentially human activities, such as eating, sleeping, or urinating.” The theorists hence hold that more equal distribution of social goods “enlarges freedom by empowering individuals and freeing them from the social evils that otherwise blight their lives, such as unemployment, homelessness, poverty´” . Moreover, with more money people are more likely to afford better education and hence not have such a limited career path, which again would increase freedoms. If the majority of the liberty of people is augmented by an equal distribution of wealth, in that sense it is fair to suggest that freedom is compatible to a just distribution of social goods.

It has been argued by personas such as John Mill that the rich could lose many of their accustomed freedoms; however, Theorists like T.H Green and other positive liberalists believe strongly that it is a moral duty to spread the benefits one enjoys with the underprivileged. In fact, philosopher P. Unger stated that for the good of the society as a whole the better off should “give away most of her financially valuable assets, and much of her income, directing the funds to lesson efficiently the serious suffering of others” . Theorist R. Tidor agrees to a high degree with Unger, however Tidor goes further in that he believes that a equal distribution shouldn’t be voluntary, but compulsory. He also believes that even though the freedoms of the rich would be dramatically tempered with, equal distribution would be necessary. He explains that since it’s for the common good of society “mandatory sharing of the team’s benefits and burdens” is necessary to increase the liberties of the majority. This is a more radical view that tries to justify the compatibility of liberty in a society with equal distribution of social goods. Having briefly explained why a egalitarian distribution of goods would be compatible with freedoms, we can now move to cover the other side of the coin.

At this point, it seems as if freedom is to a high extent compatible with a just distribution of social goods. However, equality, and especially total equality is not ‘all good’, not everyone in society benefits from an egalitarian allocation of social goods. In fact, even Robert Nozick who is a supporter of equal distribution considers that “any restriction on a person’s right to private property, such as taxing peoples assets… constitutes an interference with their freedom”. It will become apparent that the best off in society would negatively be affected by a just distribution in that their liberty would be greatly limited and controlled.

One of the biggest aspects of a equal distribution that would dramatically cut back on ones freedom would be the removal of the wealth of the rich to give to the poor. This could lead the rich to go through two possible roots of unfreedom. The first and most evident root that these ex-wealthy populations could be forced into is simply losing all the freedoms they were accustomed to having. In fact Friedrich Hayek held that the removal of resources from the rich would affect the liberty of the rich dramatically while “the freedom off the worst off is no more diminished by their lack of resources than it is by their lack of any other endowments, such as the ability to fly like a bird or to perform miracles” . Hayek used this argument to support that a just distribution is not compatible; by saying in a sense that if (hypothetically and metaphorically speaking) one already knows how to fly like a bird and perform miracles and if one were restricted to such abilities, it would be harshly unjust in contrast to not being able to have such abilities in the first place. The second path that the ex-wealthy could be forced into would be “entering the employment contract, [where] employees agree to give up their freedom to do as they please for the duration of the working day” this would not be necessary if there were no equal distribution of resources, for those economically benefitted “already have enough to enjoy the freedom to not work” or to work with a “significant degree of freedom of choice regarding your career path” . It can be assumed that the privileged economically would be worse off in a society with equal distribution.

Another case in which a just distribution of social goods would limit one’s freedom is with the state intervention and government control of one’s financial condition that would appear simultaneously. This is the view argued by the negative liberalists and the right wing critics of wealth equality that believe that a just distribution of wealth gives “rise to new forms of unfreedom since, by justifying broader state powers, it robs individuals of control over their own economic and social circumstances” . There are various methods that a state might adopt when aiming for a more equal distribution of wealth, a few examples of these methods include; the increasing of taxes of the higher income earners, expropriation of property, and breaking monopolies apart like done to IBM. If these methods would be put into practice, a further conflict of liberty would arise; “if liberty is doing what one pleases, and if people do not please to be made more equal in the respect in question, then asserting a right to equality [would be] incompatible with asserting a right liberty in question” . Even though it seems as if only the better off in society would have their freedom limited by state intervention, the worst off in society would arguably be as well. If there were a just distribution of social goods in community X controlled by its government, nobody would be able to rise economically in society and hence the population would be deprived of the new freedoms more wealth would bring and would also be robbed of the freedom to rise in society, a freedom which without can bring increased de-motivation. Equal distribution would demand higher state control and this would limit the freedom of the whole society, however, noticeably more, the liberty of the wealthy. Various countries have gone through this process of state control, namely Russia, and this “fair” system was regarded a “unfair” by a majority of the population.

It has been clearly suggested that with a just distribution the wealthy would have their freedoms substantially limited while on the other hand the worst off would have their freedoms dramatically enhanced. Here you have a complicated situation where you have the majority of the human population that is underprivileged and would benefit from an egalitarian distribution. However, does that fact justify a government(s) taking utilitarian measures and spreading the wealth? Should like T.H Green has said “from time to time, the freedoms of the few have to be restricted to enhance the freedoms of the many”? Is it fair for those rich who have or not worked their way up the ladder to lose their freedoms and motivation for the good of the majority? Also, very importantly the worst off in society would also be negatively impacted by a total egalitarian system- where increased government control would take over and de-motivation would grow. It could be considered a fact that the majority would in a way or another benefit freedom wise from an equal distribution; however, I personally believe liberty is only compatible to a low extent with a total egalitarian distribution since a huge population from all levels of society would have their freedoms removed in many significant situations.

At this point it probably seems that I have elitist views, and that would make sense considering I support the center right side of the political spectrum- however, my opinion has deeper roots and less-elitist principles than it first meets the eye. If a total equal distribution were attempted in practical terms a few outcomes would be expected- firstly in practical terms, total equality is not achievable. Secondly, it would result in removing private property and probably confiscating money by higher income taxes for the better off in society. This would consequentially result in the desperation of the better off who have lost all their liberties and would bring feelings of unfairness since in many cases people have made their money from working hard. This would also wipe away motivation of the higher classes who have always received freedoms from working for their money. On the other side, it would also remove motivation for the lower classes who now can work all their lives and not rise in society. Hence, work will cease to have a goal for all people, which will henceforth be a in practical solution, for it is enshrined in human nature to need a goals and rewards. In fact, If person x were a architect, and person y a barmaid, and both would be gaining the same income at the end of the day, part of the motivation would be gone, for the want to be upgraded in society is very persistent in human nature. Indeed, it is not simply enough to be doing what one wants as a job. Moreover, there would always be a longing for gaining more than the average freedoms, and know that what you can do and achieve when it comes to liberty is limited at a certain point.

What I would perceive as a just distribution, which would be more practical and fall short from total equality would be a system that that would cooperate John Rawls two principles of justice to a high extent. The first principle requires that “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others”. This refers to basic social goods such as the right to vote, freedom of religion, freedom of thought and expression, schooling to a degree, among others. What I would add to this is that everyone should also have access to basic resources, such as sanitation, water, shelter etc. This is a dimension that I think is missing from John Rawls principles of Justice. Moreover, the second principle of John Rawls also known as the difference principle touches upon how economic advantages should be distributed. There are two parts of this principle, the first which touches upon taxation and redistribution and the second which propagates equal opportunity. The latter part of the principle is one where John Rawls and I are in agreement, however, we do have conflicting opinions about the first part of the second principle of Justice. I am of the opinion that distribution is important, but that it should up to the high income earner to some extent where some of their money is directed in society. I think that the tax levels should match the functioning of a state and a modest percentage should be taken from the better off in society for distribution. I think this should be modest, because in many cases the government could be corrupt; the money may also go to fund a government project that one doesn’t agree with; and one may work very hard for their money and have to give more than 50% away as done in Belgium. I think that one should feel obliged to distribute their money if they are in a good economic position to organizations like a church, or a organization that helps the worst off in society, or even to the government. However, I think this should be a choice, for in practical terms, if one has the freedom to donate rather than having to give x amount of money to the government without choice, one is more likely to distribute goods and feel like their freedoms haven’t been limited.

Moreover, when it comes to equality of opportunity, this is a principle which should be promoted so that it increasingly works, for in my opinion this is much more attainable than total equality. This principle, in simple words refers to any one person with the same qualifications and talents should have the same chance to get a job regardless of their sex, birth, race and disabilities. So, someone from a lower class, which happens to be a woman, with good qualifications but from a public school, who also happens to be disabled, but able to do the work required and from a African or Asian background, would have the same chance at securing a job as a white male from a rich background who has the same qualifications, but from a private schooling. This may also sound impossible, however it is much more attainable than total equality, and it seems like a fairer system. A variable that I would add to the equality of opportunity principle is that for it to work practically and be more easily achievable, it should apply to regions or a nation states. What I mean by this is that equality of opportunity is not attainable at the world stage level, because one cannot compare a developed state like Norway to a less developed developing state such as Bangladesh- this is because citizens of both nation states will never have the same equalities of opportunity, as in the same level of public education for instance.

Overall, I think it comes down to practicalities and what truly works- a system of total equality would be impossible in this western capitalist world that we live in, for it would need us to live in a Marxist no social class system which at this point realistically would be impossible achieve. Even a hundred years ago when there might have been a greater chance for total equality it didn’t develop, because perhaps human nature doesn’t allow for that kind of system. One is always going to feel greed, envy and other negative sentiments which disintegrate any chances for such a system. In my proposal for a just system of distribution it places practicality before unattainable ideals.