Rawls (?) view of a just society

[bunny]

There is a definition of a just society (due to Rawls I think though it has been a while). The definition (or description perhaps) is that a hypothetical society is just or fair if you would choose to live in it without knowing in advance which role within society you would take. Anyone have any opinions on this? Are there other views on a fair society that are worth a look?

[RagnarPirate]

The problem with that definition is that sick people might choose to live in an unjust society. So you can not say that a society is just solely because people voluntarily choose to live there (people willingly moved to Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany).

A free society, BOTH economically and politically is the only just society (depending on the degree of compliance with these criteria, some societies are more just than others).

This is a libertarian society of laissez-faire capitalist economics. The only legitimate role for governmental is to protect invidiual rights of freedom and property from the use of force by others. This is limited to police, military, and objective courts of law. Taxation is limited to these services and is applied solely as a user fee for the particular services rendered.

[Hoi Polloi]

I think that the relation of justice and freedom is much more complex and nuanced than freedom = justice. Freedom has come to be a term of magic in American political debate and needs to defined and clarified before such generalizations can be made in my opinion.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with that definition is that sick people might choose to live in an unjust society. So you can not say that a society is just solely because people voluntarily choose to live there (people willingly moved to Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany).

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is quite what is meant - I think it is a thought experiment to decide if a theoretical society is just rather than a dictum that everyone will always migrate to what they think is the most just society.

[ QUOTE ]
A free society, BOTH economically and politically is the only just society (depending on the degree of compliance with these criteria, some societies are more just than others).

This is a libertarian society of laissez-faire capitalist economics. The only legitimate role for governmental is to protect invidiual rights of freedom and property from the use of force by others. This is limited to police, military, and objective courts of law. Taxation is limited to these services and is applied solely as a user fee for the particular services rendered.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Rawls would say that the society you outline is indeed just if a rational person would be happy to structure society like that without knowing in advance whether they would be born into a rich family with all the advantages that entails or something else (perhaps a chronically sick person from a poor background).

[tomdemaine]

It's called the veil of ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

[madnak]

My understanding of Rawls was that basically the justice of a society depends on the conditions for the absolute most unfortunate individuals. I haven't actually read him, but this has been my impression.

I think the standard of justice you're describing is as good a standard as there can be. But I believe Rawls's position is incompatible with it.

[RagnarPirate]

Justice: moral or absolute rightness (american heritage dictionary). Freedom is the ability to act without coercion. Freedom is moral. Slavery, partial or total, is immoral. Therefore a society where individuals are enjoy political and economic freedom is a just society.

[RagnarPirate]

Both the productive and the "sick" are better off in the free laissez-faire capitalist society.

It is obvious why the producers are better off so let us consider the "sick".

It would seem that the "sick" would prefer an egalitarian society where they would be brought up to the average level. The problem is that the average standard of living of the egalitarian society is much lower than that of a laissez-faire capitalist society.

In additon, insurance products are a part of any capitalistic society. So, if it is of value to you, voluntarily purchase disability, health, and life insurance to protect against catastrophic events while living in the most productive social system possible.

[RagnarPirate]

I read the wikipedia article. Rawl's error was including the following criteria for evaluating societies:

"Rawls also argues that the representatives in the original position would adopt the maximin rule as their principle for evaluating the choices before them... i.e. making the choice that produces the highest payoff for the worst outcome."

This is not the standard that I would choose for my life. Let me give an example.

World 1 = 100% of inhabitants have mild suffering until death.

World 2 = 98% of inhabitants have extreme joy for 1000 years. 2% have severe suffering until death.

I would choose world 2. Rawls would choose world 1 by his criteria.

In addition the choices are ridiculous, because in a free laisez-faire world each individual is allowed to buy insurance to allow their desired level of risk aversion.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a definition of a just society (due to Rawls I think though it has been a while). The definition (or description perhaps) is that a hypothetical society is just or fair if you would choose to live in it without knowing in advance which role within society you would take. Anyone have any opinions on this? Are there other views on a fair society that are worth a look?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rawls's position has a few holes in it, in my view. Suppose you have two societies. In one, 99.9% of the population live like hedonist kings. They never work and enjoy perpetual satisfaction of their every whim. The other .1% is continually subjected to excruciating torture because the technology that supports the majority is powered by a process that causes excruciating pain to the tortured minority. Who is in which group depends on some genetic accident.

In the other society, everyone is treated equally, but their lives all suck. Everyone does back-breaking, painful labor because they refuse to torture the genetic anomalies and exploit the otherwise free energy.

In which society would a rationally self-interested person choose to live?

Obviously, this hypothetical is extreme, but it illustrates the point. Unless we assume that the person behind the "veil of ignorance" is irrationally risk-averse, he would often choose an "unjust" (at least from the perspective of most conventionally accepted definitions) society .

edit: I just read the other responses. Yeah, what they said.