Equality and Liberty: Analyzing Rawls and Nozick

401 Pages·1991·39.71 MB·English

by  J. Angelo Corlett (eds.)

EQUALITY AND LIBERTY
Equality and
Liberty
Analyzing Rawls and Nozick
Edited by
J. Angelo Corlett
Fellow in Philosophy
University of Arizona
M
MACMILLAN
Selection, editorial matter and essay © J. Angelo Corlett 1991
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1991 978-0-333-53844-9
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of
this publication may be made without written permission.
No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or
transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with
the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988,
or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road,
London WlP 9HE.
Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this
publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil
claims for damages.
First published 1991 by
MACMILLAN ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL LTD
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 2XS
and London
Companies and representatives
throughout the world
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Corlett, J. Angelo
Equality and liberty: analyzing Rawls and Nozik
I. State, Theories, Nozik, Robert. Anarchy, state and utopia.
I. Corlett, J. Angelo
320.101
ISBN 978-0-333-53845-6 ISBN 978-1-349-21763-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-21763-2
to Burleigh T. Wilkins, my mentor
Contents
Acknowledgments IX
Introduction
J. Angelo Corlett
PART I Analyzing Rawls
1 Kant and Rawls: Contrasting Conceptions of
Moral Theory
Joseph M. Grcic 11
2 Rawls on Natural Inequality
Michael Gorr 19
3 Discussions Defining the Least Advantaged
Roy C. Weatherford 37
4 Principles for Individual Actions
Burleigh T. Wilkins and Kelly M. Zelikovitz 46
5 Rawls and Ownership: The Forgotten
Category of Reproductive Labor
Sibyl Schwarzenbach 66
6 Reflective Equilibrium and Archimedean
Points
Norman Daniels 90
7 The Claims of Reflective Equilibrium
Joseph Raz 110
8 What is Wrong with Reflective Equilibria?
D. W. Haslett 136
9 Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphysical
John Rawls 145
vii
viii Contents
10 Does Ambiguity Lurk Behind the Veil
of Ignorance in Rawls' Original Position?
J. Angelo Corlett 174
11 Rawlsian Constructivism in Moral Theory
David 0. Brink 196
12 Capitalism, Socialism, and Justice: Reflections
on Rawls' Theory of Justice
Kai Nielsen 217
PART II Analyzing Nozick
13 Stability and Utopia; A Critique of Nozick's
Framework Argument
Mark Fowler 245
14 Has Nozick Justified Has Nozick Justified
the State?
Charles Sayward and Wayne Wasserman 261
15 Nozick and the Individualist Anarchist
Fredric C. Young 268
16 Nozick's Argument for the Legitimacy of
the Welfare State
Michael Davis 276
17 An Internal Critique of Nozick's Entitlement
Theory
Gregory S. Kavka 298
PART III Analyzing Rawls and Nozick
18 Rawls and Nozick; Justice Without Well-Being
Robert Ehman 313
Bibliography 330
Index 397
Acknowledgments
David 0. Brink, 'Rawlsian Constructivism and Moral Theory', Cana
dian Journal of Philosophy, 17 (1987): 71-90. Reprinted by permission
of the Canadian Journal of Philosophy.
J. Angelo Corlett, 'Does Ambiguity Lurk Behind the Veil of Ignorance
in Rawls's Original Position?', Kluwer Academic Publishers. Reprinted
by permission Kluwer Academic Publishers and J. Angelo Corlett.
Norman Daniels, 'Reflective Equilibrium and Archimedian Points',
Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 10 (1980): 83-103. Reprinted by
permission of the Canadian Journal of Philosophy.
Michael Davis, 'Nozick's Argument for the Legitimacy of the Welfare
State', Ethics, 97 (1987): 576-94. Reprinted by permission of University
of Chicago Press.
Robert Ehman, 'Rawls and Nozick: Justice Without Well-Being', The
Journal of Value Inquiry, 14 (1980): 7-21. Reprinted by permission of
The Journal of Value Inquiry.
Mark Fowler, 'Stability and Utopia: A Critique of Nozick's Framework
Argument', Ethics, 90 (1980): 550-63. Reprinted by permission of Uni
versity of Chicago Press.
Joseph M. Grcic, 'Kant and Rawls: Contrasting Conceptions of Moral
Theory', The Journal of Value Inquiry, 17 (1983): 235-40. Reprinted by
permission of The Journal of Value Inquiry.
Michael Gorr, 'Rawls on Natural Inequality', The Philosophical
Quarterly, 33 (1983): 1-18. Reprinted by permission of The Philosophical
Quarterly and Michael Gorr.
D. W. Haslett, 'What is Wrong With Reflective Equilibria?' The Philo
sophical Quarterly, 37 (1987): 305-11. Reprinted by permission of The
Philosophical Quarterly and D. W. Haslett.
Gregory Kavka, 'An Internal Critique ofNozick's Entitlement Theory',
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 63 (1982): 371-80. Reprinted by permis-.
sion of Pacific Philosophical Quarterly and Gregory Kavka.
Kai Nielsen, 'Capitalism, Socialism, and Justice: Reflections on Rawls's
Theory of Justice', Social Praxis, 7 (1980), 253-71. Reprinted by permis
sion of Kai Nielsen.
John Rawls, 'Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical', Philoso
phy and Public Affairs, 14 (1985): 223-51. Reprinted by permission of
Princeton University Press.
ix
X Acknowledgments
Joseph Raz, 'The Claims of Reflective Equilibrium',/nquiry, 25 (1982)
307-32. Reprinted by permission of Inquiry and Joseph Raz.
Charles Sayward and Wayne Wasserman, 'Has Nozick Justified the
State?', Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 62 (1981): 411-15. Reprinted
by permission of Pacific Philosophical Quarterly and Charles Sayward
and Wayne Wasserman.
Sibyl Schwarzenbach, 'Rawls and Ownership: the Forgotten Category
of Reproductive Labor', Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary
Volume 13 (1987): 139-67. Reprinted by permission of the Canadian
Journal of Philosophy.
Roy C. Weatherford, 'Defining the Least Advantaged', The Philo
sophical Quarterly, 33 (1983): 63-9. Reprinted by permission of The
Philosophical Quarterly and Roy C. Weatherford.
Burleigh T. Wilkins and Kelly M. Zelikovitz, 'Principles for Individual
Actions', Philosophia, 14 (1984): 299-319. Reprinted by permission of
Burleigh T. Wilkins and Philosophia.
Frederick C. Young, 'Nozick and the Individualist Anarchist', The
Journal of Libertarian Studies, 8 (1986): 43-9. Reprinted by permission
of the The Journal of Libertarian Studies.
Introduction
J. Angelo Corlett
The respective political philosophies of John Rawls and Robert Nozick
are of major importance to contemporary thinkers. The 'Bibliography' at
the end of this collection of papers helps to show how influential their
respective theories of justice are. But their theories are also conflicting, in
several important respects. Rawls is widely known as a proponent of what
some refer to as the 'welfare state', while Nozick provides a theoretical
foundation for what is often called the 'libertarian' position.
Rawls' theory of justice as fairness is the most widely discussed political
philosophy within the Western analytical philosophical tradition. One of
the major assets of Rawls' theory is that it sets out to reconcile two essential
intuitions of western political society: individualism and fair distribution of
goods. While egalitarians demand that wealth is redistributed, libertarians
often argue that such a redistribution of goods minimizes individual
freedom. The significance of Rawls' theory is that it attempts to resolve
this division between egalitarians and libertarians by, on the one hand,
positing the Equal Liberties Principle and, on the other hand, stating the
importance of both the Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle and the
Difference Principle. The Equal Liberties Principle meets the libertarian
demand, in general, to respect personal freedom, while the Fair Equality
of Opportunity Principle and the Difference Principle meet the demands
of fairness regarding economic distribution.
Thus there is a sense in which Rawls' theory can be seen as a hybrid one,
bringing together what are often considered conflicting intuitions about
justice. But it is more than this. It is a theory which is intended to stand
plainly in the social contract tradition of political philosophy. In this way,
it is a theory within the tradition of constitutional democracy. By this it is
meant that, according to Rawls' theory, principles of justice are chosen by
individuals who reach an agreement regarding the fundamental rules which
are to govern society.
Rawls' theory also seeks to place itself within the Kantian tradition
of political philosophy. By appealing to a thought experiment which is
capable of rendering principles of justice that, lexically ordered, are to
serve as the uni versa! guidelines of a just and fair society, Rawls' theory
1