[fusion_builder_container type=”flex” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” overlay_color=”” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” padding_top=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” padding_right=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” center_content=”no” last=”true” min_height=”” hover_type=”none” link=”” border_sizes_top=”” border_sizes_bottom=”” border_sizes_left=”” border_sizes_right=”” first=”true”][fusion_text]
In his book “The Idea of Justice”, Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen offers a simple example to begin the discussion. Imagine a scenario where three children, Anne, Bob, and Carla quarrel over a flute. Carla built the flute, and she claims the flute is hers because it is the product of her labor. Not so, says Anne, who claims the flute should be hers because she is the only one of the three that can play the flute. Yet, Bob claims the flute should be given to him because he is so poor that he has no other toys, and the flute would give him something to play with. How would you decide between these three claims?
It turns out that who gets the flute derives from your philosophy of justice. Egalitarians would argue vehemently, on economic grounds, that Bob should get the flute because he is the poorest and neediest of the three. Egalitarians would take the flute from Carla and give it to Bob since he has no toys to play with.
In contrast, utilitarians would argue, just as forcefully, that the flute should be given to Anne. From the utilitarian philosophy of greatest pleasure to the greatest number, Anne would derive the greatest pleasure as she is the only one that can actually play the flute.
Finally, libertarians would insist that Carla’s labor produced the flute and therefore it is hers.
In other words, for egalitarians it is a question of addressing Bob’s poverty; for utilitarians the subject matter is human fulfillment, as addressed by Anne’s playing the flute. And for libertarians the essential point is the right to enjoy the product of one’s labor. All three positions are based on rational arguments within their own perspective of justice. Yet, each position leads to a different resolution that exacerbates the Us-Them divide where the tears of strangers are only water.
Theories of justice abound, and in the early 1970’s Harvard University professors John Rawls and Robert Nozick rigorously and brilliantly broached the topic from opposite points of view. Rawls, one of the major thinkers of liberal political philosophy, published “A Theory of Justice” in which he defends redistributions – such as giving the flute to Bob or Anne – by offering an understanding of “justice as fairness.” According to Rawls, ignorance of one’s assets (intelligence, abilities, etc.) would lead people to adopt a strategy that would maximize prospects to the least well-off just in case we happen to find ourselves in that group. Rawls would probably give the flute to Bob.
His fellow philosopher Robert Nozick countered with his 1974 book “Anarchy, State, and Utopia”, asserting that Rawls patterns of redistribution are morally arbitrary and incompatible with liberty. Nozick points out that the state would have to continually intervene with our freedoms to enforce and preserve any distribution desired by Rawls.
If holdings are acquired justly, such as by Carla’s own efforts to build the flute, what exactly would be the principle under which justly acquired holdings are to be distributed? We all want a just society, but does justice reside in a redistribution of holdings, or in the underlaying ethics of ownership?
Appropriating the results of someone’s labor gives others a slave-like property right in the person. Thus, a redistribution of Carla’s flute can only be accomplished by violating her individual rights. No, Bob and Anne’s tears are not only water, but neither are Carla’s tears, and it is her flute.
Dr. Azel’s latest book is Liberty for Beginners.
“The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author”.
[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]
