Social and Political Philosophy

Assignment for fourth class (February 15)

This week we bring our study of the social contract tradition up to the present. According to Social Contract Theory, the correct social rules are those that rational people would agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others will follow those rules as well. But which rules would rational people accept? What sort of social contract would these hypothetical bargainers write up and sign?

John Rawls argues that, unless we place some constraints on the problem, there will be no determinate answer. He tries to convince his readers that the choice of basic rules will be fair only if it is made from behind "a veil of ignorance." That is, we should imagine that the "rational people" who are trying to decide what set of rules to accept are ignorant of what their specific place or role in society will be. We should imagine that they don't know what race or class they will belong to, what talents or disabilities they will have, or even what their personal tastes and preferences will be. If they were ignorant of all these things then they would not be tempted to try to skew the social rules to benefit themselves. This "veil of ignorance" would then make it possible for rational people to agree on a set of rules that would be fair to all. According to Rawls, they would agree on his two principles of justice (stated briefly on page 677 in our reader and in full detail on pp.696-697).

Readings:

Arnhart, Chapter 13

Selections from John Rawls, Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer in Princeton Readings in Political Thought, pp.656-708 (Read the selections in that order: first Rawls, then Nozick, then Walzer.)

Write: 3-5 pages (total) answering the following questions:

1. As best you can figure out from the excerpts in the reader and from Arnhart’s discussion, why does Rawls think that people in “the original position” would choose his two principles of justice? What reasoning would lead them to conclude that those are the best principles for them to accept?

2. Robert Nozick argues that “liberty upsets patterns” and that we should not, therefore, choose a “patterned” conception of justice. Instead we should choose his “entitlement theory” (a historical theory of justice that says any pattern of holdings is just as long as it was produced by the right kind of historical process – in this case, by voluntary transactions). How does the example about Wilt Chamberlain illustrate and support Nozick’s point of view?

3. Imagine as best you can, that you are in the original position, behind the veil of ignorance. Suppose that you are sitting down to choose the fundamental social rules that will govern your life and the lives of your children and so on.

Are you inclined to choose the rules included in the "entitlement theory of justice" advocated by Robert Nozick? (Remember that for Nozick the fundamental rules require each of us to refrain from violating the persons or property of others -- and that's all. There are no requirements for the well-off to assist the needy and no public provision for anything but enforcement of the criminal law. On Nozick's view, to require some of us to pay taxes to provide services and opportunities to others is a form of slavery.)

Or are you more inclined to choose Rawls' principles of justice? (Remember that, although Rawls agrees with Nozick about the overriding importance of liberty, he also includes a second principle that requires that any inequalities of wealth, power, etc. be arranged to benefit those who are least well off and be attached to positions that are open to all. Rawls interprets these requirements quite strongly, so that any society which would satisfy his principles would have to have -- at least -- a very substantial "social safety net" to prevent anyone from falling into poverty, strict rules against discrimination, and significant public provision of education and training, so that people would have genuinely equal opportunities to 'move up'.)

Try to explain why your choice is the better one. Consider the arguments offered by Nozick and Rawls and Walzer as you try to make and justify your choice.

4. Libertarians like Nozick disagree with Rawls about what justice requires. But they also disagree with Rawls about what should count as a fair bargaining situation for choosing principles of justice. From their point of view, the "veil of ignorance" is attractive to Rawls precisely because it sets the stage for his egalitarian principles of justice. The intuition that leads Rawls to propose the veil is that the outcome of the social lottery (what social position we happen to have been born to) and the outcome of the natural lottery (what talents and character traits we happen to have been born with) are both "morally arbitrary." We don't deserve these things, Rawls says; they are gifts. So it makes sense to him to try to imagine a bargaining process that would prevent people from turning these things to their advantage.

The libertarians criticize this line of thought for assuming what needs to be proved (a strong presumption of moral equality). They say that the characteristics Rawls wants to exclude from the bargaining process are not morally arbitrary, they make up an important part of who we are. They think that a bargain struck between real people, who know all the things that Rawls wants his bargainers not to know, is fair as long as no one is in a position to coerce anyone else. So they reject Rawls claim that the veil of ignorance provides a reasonable constraint on the choice of principles of justice. They say that Rawls is skewing the social contract towards egalitarianism (a principle calling for equal outcomes) by imagining that the choice is made "behind the veil."

What do you think about this criticism of Rawls? Do you think that the "veil of ignorance' would make the choice of principles fair? Or would it be better to imagine that the principles were being chosen by people who were not ignorant in the ways Rawls specifies? What principles do you think you would choose if you knew what the veil is supposed to keep you from knowing?

5. Finally, we have been exploring the social contract tradition for some time now. Do you think that it is useful to conceive of government as deriving its authority from some kind of contract or agreement? (Explain.)