[lit-ideas] Re: The Reluctant Water Boarder
- From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:12:29 -0400
Walter mentioned Rawls' theory of distributive
justice a while back. Isn't that essentially
"doing unfair things for (perceived) greater
social justice"?
Robert: Rawls says no such thing.
Probably I misconstrue. In his controversial
"difference principle," Rawls argued that the
"unequal" can be just. (See below.) For a mandarin
to presume to "arrange social and economic
inequalities" strikes me as unfair, in the same
way that Plato's Republic strikes me as unfair.
"An unequal distribution can be just" ... in
other words, a mandarin in charge of reallocating
resources chooses an unequal distribution to
achieve justice.
Again, this came from striving to understand the
maximin principle Walter mentioned on another
thread. It seemed patently unfair that Philosopher
Kings or Rawlsian technocrats should presume to
know what maximizes benefit. Hence Rawls seems to
argue that the unfair can be just.
Maximin in philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax
In philosophy, the term "maximin" is often used in
the context of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice,
where he refers to it (Rawls (1971, p. 152)) in
the context of The Difference Principle. Rawls
defined this principle as the rule which states
that social and economic inequalities should be
arranged so that "they are to be of the greatest
benefit to the least-advantaged members of
society". *In other words, an unequal distribution
can be just* when it maximizes the benefit to those
who have the most minuscule allocation of welfare
conferring resources (which he refers to as
"primary goods").
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
