5.10 Problems with Rawls

Thin Theory of the Good

Rawls presents a thin theory of the good, suggesting that you cannot derive something from nothing.
Critics argue that this perspective leads to questionable assumptions about risk aversion:
- Rawls’ view implies that one would be excessively risk-averse to avoid small hits for the benefit of those at the bottom.
- John Harsanyi challenges this notion by proposing that behind the veil of ignorance, individuals would lean towards utilitarianism instead.
The disagreement between Rawls and Harsanyi reflects underlying assumptions about human nature and risk preferences.

The assumptions made by philosophers often lead to differing conclusions about human interaction:
- Hobbes vs. Locke: Hobbes views life in the state of nature as horrific, resulting in perpetual war; Locke believes human nature is generally benign and focused on efficiency rather than conflict.
This establishes a 'garbage in, garbage out' problem in philosophical arguments, where initial assumptions influence the outcome.
Rawls’ assertions about risk are foundational; if they do not resonate with one’s perspective, the theory loses credibility.

Rawls’ Original Position is critiqued for being circular, as it is designed to yield desired outcomes:
- He uses the cake-cutting metaphor:
  - To determine a fair way to split a cake, one person cuts while the other chooses to ensure fairness. The cutter will strive for even slices.
  - However, this method presumes equal distribution as fair without considering varying circumstances of individuals involved.
The Original Position's setup mirrors how Hobbes and Locke construct their states of nature:
- Each philosopher's scenario guides the conclusion they aim to establish, raising questions about the justification of results.

Rawls’ moral arbitrariness argument posits that inequalities based on luck (e.g., genetics or circumstances) are unjustifiable:
- Core Assertion: No one deserves their advantages or disadvantages, thus everything should be reevaluated through justice principles.
Rawls suggests starting with a presumption of equality unless unequal distribution benefits everyone, but this presents challenges:
- Susan Hurley argues that Rawls' rationale might undermine both equal and unequal distributions.
- The premise that no reason exists to establish any particular distribution raises questions about why to prefer egalitarianism over other systems.

The argument has both a negative and a positive implication:
- Negative: Questions the moral right to natural abilities or talents.
- Positive: Challenges the reasoning behind maintaining an egalitarian presumption.
It suggests that without a sound justification for equal distribution, any distribution principle remains questionable.

The discussion highlights problems in Rawls’ arguments, including potential circular reasoning.
Upcoming discussions will focus on Rawls’ later writings, framed as political rather than metaphysical.