Jason Brennan and John Tomasi have argued that if we focus on income alone, the Difference Principle supports welfare-state capitalism over property-owning democracy, because capitalism maximizes long run income growth for the worst off. If so, the defense of property-owning democracy rests on the priority of equal opportunity for political influence and social advancement over raising the income of the worst off, or on integrating workplace control into the Difference Principle’s index of advantage. The thesis of this paper is that (...) even based on income alone, the Difference Principle is not as hostile to property-owning democracy as it may seem, because the Difference Principle should not be interpreted to require maximizing long run income growth. The main idea is that it is unfair to make the present worst off accept inequality that doesn’t benefit them, for the sake of benefitting the future worst off, if the future worst off will be better off than they are anyway. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: What Is Equality? From the Fact of Inequality to the Fact of Pluralism The Difference Principle Ideals Latent in Public Political Culture How Egalitarian Are We? Outside of the Bounds of Public Reason References.

Trata-se de uma “reconstrução com reserva genealógica” das bases historiográficas e ideológicas do liberalismo politico e dos desdobramentos teóricos da teoria da justiça de John Rawls, tendo como fio de condutor as contribuições da filósofa Katrina Forrester e de interlocutores acerca das fases de surgimento, consolidação e expansão da paisagem intelectual, para, em seguida, avaliar os potenciais e limites da sequência de acontecimentos que tornaram possível a tradição do liberalismo igualitário se estabelecer como paradigma incontornável, e não menos controverso, na (...) história da filosofia moral e do pensamento político do século XX. (shrink)

Katrina Forrester’s book poses a problem for any reviewer that, I suspect, will be reflected in the experience of its readers. Unusually, the author is equally.

This paper assesses G. A. Cohen's critique of Rawlsian special incentives. Two arguments are identified and criticized: an argument that the difference principle does not justify incentives because of a limitation on an agent's prerogative to depart from a direct promotion of the interests of the worst off, and an argument that justice is limited in its scope. The first argument is evaluated and defended from the criticism that once Cohen has conceded some ethically grounded special incentives he cannot sustain (...) his critique of special incentives. But it is finally rejected as a subtle form of an unreasonably demanding moral rigorism. The second argument is interpreted as the more plausible of Cohen's claims. It has, however, to be defended via two subsidiary theses: the claim that Rawls endorses a moral division of labour and that this in turn grounds a further commitment to moral dualism as opposed to moral monism. This argument is assessed and rejected. Neither the moral division of labour nor moral monism supports the claim that in applying the principles of justice to a basic structure one does not thereby apply them to the individuals constrained to act within that structure in the marketing of their labour. Nor is it plausible to identify local aspects of social relations where the principles of justice are suspended. Such principles are presupposed, for example in market relations or the family, but limitation in scope of direct application does not limit the scope of justification. That scope extends at least as far as individual decisions to market one's labour. The latter are made fair in the only possible way they could be made fair. Rawls's commitment to the revisionary socialism of James Meade illustrates this point. It is concluded that no version of Cohen's critique succeeds. However, Cohen's critique identifies the most plausible version of Rawls's egalitarianism. (shrink)

Moral philosophers are fond of the dictum “ought implies can” and even deontologists normally admit the need to take account of consequences in the design of social institutions. Too often, however, philosophers fail to take advantage of the knowledge provided by the social sciences about the constraints and consequences of alternative forms of social organization. By discussing ideals in abstraction from the problems of institutionalization, they fail at least to see some of the important consequences and costs of a proposed (...) ideal, and sometimes they fail even to understand the ideal itself. (shrink)

This essay is about the moral and political justification of affirmative action programs in the United States. Both legally and politically, many of these programs are under attack, though they remain ubiquitous. The concern of this essay, however, is not with what the law says but with what it should say. The main argument advanced in this essay concludes that most of the controversial affirmative action programs are unjustified. It proceeds in a way that avoids dependence on controversial theories of (...) justice or morality. My intention is to produce an argument that is persuasive across a broad ideological spectrum, extending even to those who believe that justice requires these very programs. Though the main focus of the essay is on affirmative action, in the course of making the case that these programs are illegitimate, I shall defend some principles about the conditions under which it is appropriate for the state to impose on civil society the demands of justice. These principles have broader implications for a normative theory of social change in democratic societies. (shrink)

RESUMEN En Teoria de la justicia Rawls no prestó suficiente atención a cómo sus princípios podrian realizarse al interior de un régimen socioeconómico especifico, por lo que entre sus criticos ha habido desacuerdo sobre cuál de dichos regimenes resulta más adecuado para llevar a cabo su concepción de la justicia. Con la finalidad de contribuir a esta discusión, en este articulo examino los argumentos que Rawls presentó a favor del socialismo liberal y de la democracia de propietarios como los sistemas (...) sociales más adecuados para realizar su teoria. La discusión anterior me permitirá mostrar las criticas que Rawls presentó a las formas tradiciones del estado del bienestar. ABSTRACT In A Theory of Justice Rawls did not consider the question of how the principles of justice could be adapted to some of the different ideal types of political regimes. For this reason, there is no agreement amongst his critics about which is the best political system to carry out the principles ofjustice. Aiming to contribute to the discussion about this topic, first I examine the arguments that Rawls presented in favor of the Liberal Socialism and Property-Owning Democracy as ideal forms of social organization. In the second part of the article the discussion about these regimes will allow me to position Rawls as a staunch critic of the Welfare-State Capitalism. (shrink)

En Teoría de la justicia Rawls no prestó suficiente atención a cómo sus principios podrían realizarse al interior de un régimen socioeconómico específico, por lo que entre sus críticos ha habido desacuerdo sobre cuál de dichos regímenes resulta más adecuado para llevar a cabo su concepción de la justicia. Con la finalidad de contribuir a esta discusión, en este artículo examino los argumentos que Rawls presentó a favor del socialismo liberal y de la democracia de propietarios como los sistemas sociales (...) más adecuados para realizar su teoría. La discusión anterior me permitirá mostrar las críticas que Rawls presentó a las formas tradiciones del estado del bienestar. (shrink)

Rawls champions the cause of the poor because of his strong moral sentiments about the eradication of poverty. I present these sentiments, which he converts into normative elements of his theory of justice. However, the conceptual framework and intellectual resources that he uses to articulate these sentiments are inadequate. His sentiments against poverty cannot be accommodated neatly, simply, and coherently in his liberal theoretical framework. Also, I point out that his definition of the identification of poor people as the least (...) advantaged members of society is not adequate. Therefore, his theory is refashioned so that it can properly account for the fundamental interests of poor people. An alternative conception is presented, revising Rawlsian liberalism to enable it to adequately champion the cause of the poor. I provide an alternative definition of poverty and apply Mill’s analysis of the relation between justice and utility to Rawls’ theory of justice. (shrink)

John Rawls is arguably the most important political philosopher of the past century. His theory of justice has set the agenda for debate in mainstream political philosophy for the past forty years, and has had an important influence in economics, law, sociology, and other disciplines. However, despite the importance and popularity of Rawls's work, there is no clear picture of what a society that met Rawls's principles of justice would actually look like. This article sets out to explore that question.