so, your natural talents and gifts, or lack of, are natural accident, and you dont deserve them.
if you don't deserve your natural gifts, why do other people deserve the work you do using those gifts?
it seems as though, by Rawls' logic, some people win rights and stakes in other people's work and profits not because it's just, but by virtue of their (accidental, and not at all related to the concept of 'justice', Rawls says) birth?
am i getting it completely wrong? does anyone else get where i'm coming from?
also, is it not just to expect fair rewards for your work? Rawls' system seems to create disincentives for the able to use their abilities. if they know that things like special affirmative action could get in their way, those who could be talented potential employees could get bumped down the list because there's a 'disadvantaged quota' to fill.
i think merit matters. but then again, i agree with Rawls that opportunities should be truly equal, not just rhetorically so. but it's problematic!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It sure is problematic. There are no real and substantial guidelines in Rawls' theory except what the society, which all rationally choose to participate in, 'decides' is the just society by the intuition of its thinkers.
American society has evolved the 'greed is good' society whereas Australia has the Ruddite 'fair go' ethic. Both are acceptable if the motivators of the liberal democracy (read 'elite opinion-makers') decides justice is served.
Affirmative action has to be based on the idea of equality. Choosing a minority or female candidate may not be as efficient in the short term as choosing without the positive discrimination but in the long term it would be reckoned to produce more equal opportunity and therefore equal or better results. The results should be better because the pool of acceptable applicants is effectively meant to be increased but promoting more politically correct thought processes in the population.
Not quite. Maybe i too am misunderstanding rawls, but as i read it, he makes the point that they were never 'your' natural gifts in the first place. They belong to the society as a whole, because without the society these natural gifts would be largely meaningless; nobody functions as a individual(barring hermits). If you require the society for your natural gifts to be expressed and reach fruition, it then follows that you have an obligation to that society to help those who are not as endowed as yourself.
He also makes the point that the difference principle is not merely a tool to 'even out handicaps as if we are all expected to compete on a fair basis in the same race', the difference principle would distribute resources to education (social theorists always bang on about education, like its some kind of magic wand)which Rawls says would improve the long term prospects of the least favored.
Rawls goes on to state though, that yes, you can prosper from your natural endowments, but only so as to better the lives around you. Its something we do (albeit in a very clumsy and inefectual way)in our society today in the form of welfare, and yes i agree that that way is not ideal.
I agree - it is really problematic. The notion of a disincentive for using your abilities can seem counterintuitive, but to me it seems to be more about acknowledging that some people's efforts or abilities are less likely to be valued or heard in certain contexts, or within certain social structures.
Having said that, I think that Rawls' idea of 'redress' is problematic too: by leaving the (potentially) disempowering social institution intact in the first place, it seems that any assistance offered to the disadvantaged is offered on the terms of the advantaged. In this way, it doesn't seem to alter the root of the problem, and risks denying agency to the disadvantaged. Tricky.
Post a Comment