Justice as Fairness

With technological, political, social disruption in full sway as we try to find our bearings in this new century, I thought it might be worthwhile reading Michael Sandel's book Justice along with following his lectures on the same topic available on video for public consumption.  In his tour that Sandel gives of the great thinkers, many of whom were familiar at least by name including Aristotle, Kant and Mill, I was intrigued when he mentioned John Rawls.  

Rawls was presented with the National Humanities Medal in 1999 by President Bill Clinton.  In the citation, the President said that Rawls was "perhaps the greatest political philosopher of the twentieth century who helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy."  The Affordable Care Act and the move to marriage equality with regard to same sex couples are cited as two prominent examples of the success of "Rawlsian" thinking in public policy.

My passing and occasional interest in philosophy and philosophers stopped with Sartre.  I did attempt an introductory book or two on Wittgenstein, but found him more than befuddling.  Sartre, I found enticing.  However, formally trained philosopher friends would tell me that existentialism was not considered real philosophy in academic circles.  Given its general proximity to the Indian Vedanta school of thought, I would interpret that crack at existentialism to be a crack at Vedanta and I would drop the whole enterprise!

But Sandel's book has reignited my interest in moral reasoning and political philosophy and I thought I would give John Rawls a go.  Here is my summary of what I have learned about Rawls philosophy.

Veil of Ignorance

Rawls core quest is to seek "justice as fairness."  That is, how to balance liberty and equality among individuals in a society.  In a well-ordered society with adequate resources there can be tension between these two aspects (that is liberty and equality) between individuals, that necessitates a "social contract."  

The problem with social contracts is that we don't choose it (in most cases).  I left India to come to the US.  Presumably, I chose this social contract as an adult.  But the super majority in this country (or in any other country) are born into it and thus would not have chosen the contract.  Moreover, if they rejected the contract, where would they go?  It would mean loss of family and all other connections.  Tough business, this!

In a dramatic leap, Rawls asks us to imagine an original position that we can all take, behind a veil of ignorance.

What he means is the following:  suppose you don't assume you are stuck with your current social contract.  Suppose you also let go of your knowledge of who you are and your status in society.  And with a clean sheet of paper draw up what sort of a society you would want - what would you create?

The slicing of a pizza pie is used as an example to describe this.  Let us say, in scenario A, we are asked to slice the pizza and we can determine which slice we can get.  And in scenario B, we are asked to slice the pizza and you do not know which slice we would get (veil of ignorance).  How would our behavior be different in these two scenarios?  Presumably, we would be much more tempered in scenario B!

Equal rights

Although Rawls philosophy does have utilitarian leanings (how can we create the greater good in society), he specifically reaches out to Kant and the Categorical Imperative in his first claim.

Rawls, in his first principle calls for equal basic liberties for all in society.  With this statement, Rawls avoids the fundamental utilitarian problem.  Which is, this: if the greatest good for the greatest number is the objective and we can enslave 2% of the population to do so, can we?  Rawls starts his philosophy by saying an emphatic no to this.  Everybody has equal rights that are sacrosanct and cannot be violated. These are liberty of conscience, freedom of association speech, vote and equal treatment under the law.

Fair equality of opportunity

Rawls then adds a second principle.  This second principle feels a bit too utopian to me personally, but we are talking about veil of ignorance here.  Rawls says that in all parts of society there are to be roughly the same prospects of culture and achievement for those similarly motivated and endowed.

In the example of the pizza pie, what Rawls is saying is that each person is entitled to earning an equal slice of the pie.  I have editorially added the word "earning" myself.  That is, I am interpreting that Rawls does not say each person shall be given an equal slice of the pie.  But rather each person should be able to earn their fair share of the pie.

Difference Principle

This third principle of Rawls is super interesting, especially those who are mathematically and statistically minded.

In the pie example, we are assuming the size of the pie is static.  But we know, particularly in capital markets oriented societies, that we are constantly trying to make the pie larger (this could be at the the expense of other aggregate costs to us like environmental damage, obesity in the population etc - but that is out of scope for now).  

So Rawls' difference principle threads the needles between the first two principles.

The difference principle says that unequal outcomes are ok!  So long as all are better off AND the least advantaged get the greatest benefit under the policy.

For example, let us assume A is ultra wealthy, B is affluent and C is least advantaged.  And the social contract we are constructing gives these units of benefits out to them.

Scenario I:  A gets 100, B gets 100, C gets 100

Scenario II: A gets 110, B gets 150 and C gets 1000

Scenario III: A gets 1000, B gets 100 and C gets 110

Scenario IV:  A gets 300, B gets 400 and C gets 600

Scenario I is appealing to no one.  The pie is of the same size, and everyone gets the same size of slice and there are no incentives for innovation and growth.

Scenario II is not realistic (perhaps) because A and B don't have as much incentive to continue to grow the pie.

Scenario III is the Trump tax cuts!  10 units to the least advantaged. 0 units to the middle class (especially in Blue states) and all the share to the ultra wealthy.

Scenario IV is what Rawls would consider just.  C did not get as much as in Scenario II. The pie got larger, that is everyone benefited.  

Objections

The biggest objection to Rawls seems to comes from the Libertarians.  Libertarians say that if someone acquires something justly, then it is their "right" to own it and that right should not be violated.

For example if someone puts in 100 hours of work to accumulate 1000 units of wealth.  And another puts in 10 hours of work to accumulate 100 units of wealth.  Then under no circumstance, the libertarian argues that the first person's extra 900 units of wealth can be forced by the state to be shared with the second person. 

A different objection is from "communitarians".  Michael Sandel, whose book I read and lectures I heard, describes himself as being in in this group.  A communitarian, Sandel says that individuals form natural units and cannot act outside of it under normal circumstances.  A family is one such unit.  Philadelphia Eagles sports fans could be another such unit.  So if I had to give a dollar to someone, I'd rather give it to my family than to a random person in another city, says the communitarian.  This becomes then a direct objection to Rawls argument for an "original position" beyond the veil of ignorance.

A third objection is based on behavioral economics, and I presumably would fall into this camp.  Rawls argued that, faced with uncertainty of what they would personally get when they chose a society behind the veil of ignorance, that people would choose the world that provided the best position for the least advantaged, worst-off class of people - since they might end up being in that group of the worst off. 

That is, if you don’t know where you will fall, you will want the worst possibility to be as acceptable as possible. 

However from a behavioral economics point of view, this is too risk-averse.  It is not at all clear that everyone will choose the best outcome for the least advantaged person since they may find themselves in that situation.  They might want to gamble to be Bill Gates or Elon Musk, and damn the torpedoes!

Summary Reflections

It seems to me like Rawls' philosophy finds a nice middle ground between the Libertarianism of Nozick, Utilitarianism of Bentham, Categorical Imperative of Kant and the approach of Aristotle.

Indeed, to my untrained ear, "justice as fairness" has a nice and reasonable ring to it.  The fundamental argument that we should be thinking about the well-being of an entire society, without taking into account our privileged or under-privileged states, while preserving the incentive to grow is quite appealing!

There are several questions that I have that I am sure will reveal a more nuanced understanding of Rawls philosophy than my cursory understanding here.  They include:

- discussion of the term overalapping consensus that he uses throught the set of lectures

- difference between moral and political "conception" as Rawls describes it.  He treats this in detail while discussing Kant

- the exact meaning of the term "fariness"

- defense of why the veil of ignorance could not be "gamed" as it were.  This was my doubt throughout.  That is why could one not pretend to be ignorant.  And why only be ignorant about some things and not other aspects of human life.  For example, what if I am ignorant that I can be hungry?

- also the use of the term "reasonableness" which I am sure in philosophical terms means a lot more that what we would commonly assume it to be.

Rawls' book Theory of Justice was reworked some and presented as a series of lectures published under the title, Political Liberalism which I found enjoyable in so far as I was able to absorb what was being conveyed. Some of these lectures are available in audio format and were certainly very interesting to listen to as an additional experience.