Justice as fairness: we can do better than we are

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Umm, wait, does that mean that I would become a subject of Her Majesty? I believe that Canadians *can* risk their very immortal souls and Precious Bodily Fluids by going to Cuba. I'm actually really curious to go there, just because.

Cheers
Aj

Fortunately I don't have an immortal soul, so I'm not worried about the effects of going to Cuba. I've never been personally, but just about every person I know has vacationed there at some point. I have a few friends who go there EVERY winter.

Cuba is interesting. It's like a failed experiment that has enough triumphs that people may not notice that it's failed. Their education and health care systems, for example, are exceptional (Cubans are living longer than Americans). Environmentally (you know, not destroying the planet) they are also ahead of the game.

I have mixed feelings when people say that people in Cuba live in poverty because they don't have all the fancy toys and crazy giant houses that some people think of as markers of wealth - since everybody has pretty much the same things and their basic needs really -are- being met (which is more than I can say for people living in poverty in either of our countries) I tend to not think of Cubans as "poor". People not actually owning the houses that they live in in Cuba is less of a concern to me than people living on the streets in Vancouver.

I do wish that there was a way that they could continue with everybody getting their needs met...without all of the awful shit that has also gone along with it. Can't everybody have a similar quality of life without all the spying/lack of privacy? Can't everybody have access to healthcare and live long lives there without a rigged game judicial system? I don't understand why it's not possible to keep the things that are fair and do away with the things that are grievously unfair.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by betenoire

I do wish that there was a way that they could continue with everybody getting their needs met...without all of the awful shit that has also gone along with it. Can't everybody have a similar quality of life without all the spying/lack of privacy? Can't everybody have access to healthcare and live long lives there without a rigged game judicial system? I don't understand why it's not possible to keep the things that are fair and do away with the things that are grievously unfair.

This is why, when talking about any of the truly utopian ideas that people still flirt with, I always say 'great idea, wrong species'. Marxism, socialism, libertarianism and anarchy are all, on paper, fantastic ideas and with some other species they would be intuitively obvious and work. If ants or bees could talk they would find Marxism and socialism self-evident. If orangutans could talk libertarianism and anarchy would make perfect sense and be intuitively obvious.

The reason it *never* works is that, well, people have self-interest. Let's say I run an egg farm. I have no incentive to produce more eggs than my quota requires. If I do, I'm not getting paid any extra since I'm paid a fixed amount for a fixed amount and I can't *sell* them because that would be a class-crime because I would then be trying to turn a profit. However, because everyone *else* is in the same boat, there's shortages because no one has any incentive to produce surplus. It literally profits them not at all. Not officially. However, there are perverse incentives to produce a *little* above quota to sell on the black market. If I have 3 dozen eggs and only need two, maybe I sell my surplus eggs for some coffee. I love coffee. Now, as long as I don't get caught all should be well. But then I get caught. Well, since the cop is in the same position as the rest of us, maybe there's something I can offer her to show my appreciation for the protection she gives to the People. So now I have a little thing going on the side with the cop and the coffee supplier. Black markets will pop up in any situation where there is scarcity imposed if it is at all possible. Even in North Korea where the control is probably as absolute as has been achieved has thriving black markets. Even though they are seriously illegal.

So in order to prevent the first crime--making extra eggs at all--there has to be strict monitoring of what happens on the collective farms. Well, who will watch the watchers? So you have informants who might get little perks for their dedication to the cause of the People. Now you have a police state. It is simply *impossible* to prevent people from pursuing their own self-interest no matter how ideologically unsound it might be.

With all that I whole good, true and sacred I wish it weren't this way but it is.

Cheers
Aj

[SoNotHer]

"This is why, when talking about any of the truly utopian ideas that people still flirt with, I always say 'great idea, wrong species'. "Marxism, socialism, libertarianism and anarchy are all, on paper, fantastic ideas and with some other species they would be intuitively obvious and work. If ants or bees could talk they would find Marxism and socialism self-evident."

So why present theories on justice and describe systems of thought that tilt towards Utopian design? And other species already do largely exist in a state of checks and balances guided by "peacekeepers" like the Woodland Fungus that I posted a September 20, 2011, Science Daily article about in the biomimicry thread today:

"Likening what happens in woodlands to the popular Nintendo Wii game,
Spore Wars, Ph.D student Tom Crowther's study has just been published in
the international journal Ecology Letters. His findings reveal that, by
feeding on the most combative fungi, invertebrates ensure that less
competitive species are not entirely destroyed or digested."

So where is that intervening force in the human race or in our communities? Where is the tolerance and in fact protection of "less competitive" voices - a tolerance and protection that Rawls' or any good judicial system must in fact be predicated upon?

And as we live now in the age of seven billion (thank you for the post on this, AJ), with nine billion looming closer than we think, and in a world of dwindling resources, how will any system of thought, any societal structure that rewards competition, hierarchies and hegemonies play out?

I think we know. And I think some part of us imagines we are heading for a time of brutal realities and choices with no hope of Utopian systems of thought, however worthy or even practical they seem in theory, let alone in praxis. And I think that scares the stuffing out of us. As well it should.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

[FONT="Arial Narrow"][SIZE="3"][FONT="Arial Narrow"]
So why present theories on justice and describe systems of thought that tilt towards Utopian design?

Because a Rawlsian conception of justice isn't utopian. Not even by half. Here's why:

Firstly, the original position/veil of ignorance thought experiment is not practical it is simply a thought experiment to get us to the two principles that self-interested, rational agents would choose if they were able to and knew *nothing* about where they would land in the social hierarchy. However, you'll note there *is* a social hierarchy.

So, rational actors, operating with full knowledge of their current social position would behave as follows. I'm a black woman so whatever rules we're going to make in our new society, I'm going to ensure that me and mine are advantaged. If that disadvantages white men, so be it. If I'm rich I'm going to make sure that what I do advantages, or at least doesn't hurt, the rich etc. But what if I don't *know* whether I will be rich or poor, the racial majority or minority, male or female, etc. Would I willingly agree to a system of social principles that would cause me harm? No. Would you? No.

But notice here that Rawls *presumes* social hierarchies. Built into the thought experiment is this assumption: I'm a doctor and my best friend is a lawyer. We're both well off and have kids who are just finishing post-grad work. My daughter is becoming a lawyer and her daughter is becoming a doctor Knowing this, over drinks, I arrange for her child to interview at my practice (where she will be hired) and she arranges for my child to interview at her law firm (where she will hired). Now, does the poor child who worked hard and got into law school have that advantage? No. Rawls *assumes* this will not change and nothing can be done so it *can* change. However, we *might* be able to put in social structures that *mimic* the advantages the poor kid does not have.

This is why it is not utopian. A utopian premise would be either there would be no rich and no poor (completely egalitarian) or that even IF there are rich and poor there will be no benefit to being rich (no connections). Rawlsians assume that there will be rich and they will be connected. Rawlsians assume that there will be majority populations and minority populations and that minority populations may be subject to discrimination, etc. So the Rawlsian tries to figure out how to balance the scales in as light-handed a way as possible. Utopians assume human nature can be changed, Rawlsians assume it can't but that society can be rigged in such a way that any inequalities benefit those who have the *least* and not the *most*.

Our current society is rigged to bring the greatest benefit to the most well off and the least benefit to the least well off. Rawlsians want to reverse that but at no point do we maintain the illusion that there will be a society where there won't *be* people who are better off than others, just that we can tip the scales so that least well-off aren't stuck in utterly hopeless positions relative to the most well-off. That's not utopian at all.

Cheers
Aj




"Likening what happens in woodlands to the popular Nintendo Wii game,
Spore Wars, Ph.D student Tom Crowther's study has just been published in
the international journal Ecology Letters. His findings reveal that, by
feeding on the most combative fungi, invertebrates ensure that less
competitive species are not entirely destroyed or digested."

So where is that intervening force in the human race or in our communities? Where is the tolerance and in fact protection of "less competitive" voices - a tolerance and protection that Rawls' or any good judicial system must in fact be predicated upon?

And as we live now in the age of seven billion (thank you for the post on this, AJ), with nine billion looming closer than we think, and in a world of dwindling resources, how will any system of thought, any societal structure that rewards competition, hierarchies and hegemonies play out?

I think we know. And I think some part of us imagines we are heading for a time of brutal realities and choices with no hope of Utopian systems of thought, however worthy or even practical they seem in theory, let alone in praxis. And I think that scares the stuffing out of us. As well it should.[/QUOTE]