DISQUS

Will Wilkinson: The Rawls in Rawlsekianism

  • Rue Des Quatre Vents · 1 year ago
    The maxi-min principle is a good starting point, since, as you say, it shifts our focus away from inequality and moves it to a general concern for helping the worst off.

    Rabid egalitarians--G.A. Cohen, Larry Temkin--generally bite the bullet and reject Rawls and accept the conclusion of the "Leveling Down Objection". They would prefer a world where all are poor rather than only some, since for them there is some "intrinsic", infinite value in equality.

    Anyhow, two quesitons: the maxi-min principle has its virtues, but don't you think it overlooks the importance of numbers? If some distribution in the Rawlsian sense gave enormous benefits to a great, great many, while leaving a small few in poor conditions, wouldn't that be better than one where every one is poor? Or slightly better than poor?

    Second: given your Rawlsian inclination, why do you think he came to different conclusions than you? Was his theoretical Rawlsianism better than his applied? Why do all his disciples--Van Parijs, Josh Cohen, Sam Freeman, Korsgaard, Scanlon, Pogge, Nagel, Dworkin--all of them disagree with your applied Rawlsianism?
  • Greg Newburn · 1 year ago
    "Rawlsekianism" is ok, I guess, but I think it would sound better as "Hayewlsianity". Let's get that one going instead.
  • glory · 1 year ago