Property, Need, and Vonnegut

As English major and a literature addict, I tend to think often fiction exposes truth better than any other medium. So, when, Thomas Grey’s description of John Rawls’ argument of egalitarian justice immediately conjured up images in my head from an anti-communist Kurt Vonnegut short story titled “Harrison Bergeron” that I read several years ago, I decided to write about it.

Many of you have probably read this story, but for those of you who haven’t, here’s the gist of it. In this futuristic community, the government is so concerned with making everyone equal that it requires the use of governmental ‘handicaps’ in order to achieve this equality. The most graceful people have to wear weights hanging from their body, the most attractive people have to wear masks, and the most intelligent people have to wear devices in their ears that periodically make painfully loud noises and interrupt their thinking. In effect, the government’s attempt to bring equality to society succeeds, yet in doing so it lowers everyone to the capabilities and the standard of life of the least of society.

While of course this is fiction and an inaccurate portrayal of Rawls’ view in that it doesn’t respect the requirements of liberty, which Rawls sees as first priority in a free society, I think it does help to illustrate some of the weaknesses in Rawls’ argument. An important component of Rawls’ theory is the ‘difference principle,’ which is intended to be implemented only after both liberty and equal opportunity have been fulfilled, rather than at the exclusion of either one. Grey explains Rawls’ difference principle as the following: “Economic asserts must be distributed so as to maximize the position of the worst-off segment or poorest class in society. To put the point another way, income and wealth are to be distributed equally except insofar as unequal distribution will give the poorest group more in the long run than they would have under complete equity, by virtue of the effect of incentives or overall economic prosperity” (880). So, contrary to Grey’s view which calls for basic physical and social needs of individuals to be met, Rawls’ theory calls for the maximization of the poorest class, regardless of the extent of the indifference or of the actual amount of wealth they have attained.

As part of his argument, Rawls’ describes the injustices not only with economic inequality, but also to the causes that lead to this inequality. According to Rawls’ it is “arbitrary from a moral point of view” (803) which members of society have the skills, background, luck, connections, etc. that will help them achieve total and financial success. To a certain degree, this is a very true statement and requires some consideration. I think even people who are very against all forms of welfare would probably acknowledge that someone who grows up in a poor urban community who doesn’t have access to a quality education is at a huge disadvantage in our capitalist society. However, I also think that using this as an argument for total equity is an irresponsible plan, and one that is, in the end, detrimental for everyone. A realistic counterpart to Rawls’ theory that the poorest class should be ‘maximized’ would also require the minimization, to a degree, of the more successful—and yes, more fortunate—classes of society. It may be unfair that some people are given extraordinary talents, but these talents, I believe, if used correctly, can help benefit society as a whole. Having intelligent thinkers and innovators is important for solving problems such as this, and having skilled people working in any field helps rather than hinders the economy.

Rawls’ also neglected to acknowledge that a person’s hard work plays a part in his or her success. He is right that the conditions in which people live and work are very different, and it is certainly very possible, even common, that an individual can be working very hard and still unable to meet their physical, not to mention social, needs. However, if we take away incentives for people to work, we decrease the standard of living for everyone. The government would have fewer incomes to tax and less money to dole out, and the problem would only make itself worse (this is a problem that Axl tackled in his blog as well). And by minimizing the contribution of the skilled people and essentially tying weights to the feet on the grounds that their fortune is “arbitrary from a moral point of view,” we take away their incentives to come up with innovations and solutions that may help advance the standard of living of our society as a whole.

I realize that in my argument I neglected to address intrinsic motivation as playing any major role, which is perhaps unfair. I also think that almost none of what I have described would happen under Rawls’ third principle actually would because it would be a situation in which “unequal distribution will give the poorest group more in the long run than they would have under complete equity, by virtue of the effect of incentives on overall economic prosperity” (880). Because of this, I don’t see the consequences of the implementation of Rawls’ argument as disastrous as I have made it out to be, but rather just futile, not particularly helping or hindering advancements toward economic justice.

While I think Rawls’ argument is weak, I also think compassion is necessary in government and I found many of Nozick’s hypothetical responses to the problems Grey described as being morally problematic. I found Grey’s solution as being a relatively realistic and attainable one, yet at the same time morally sound for all classes of society. The one challenge I would pose to his argument is about his description of people who have less as being someone alienated from society. I think this is an absolutely true statement, but not one that welfare programs necessarily help with. I see a lot of negative societal attitudes towards welfare recipients that I think alienate them from society in much the same way their poverty does. I don’t think this is a reason not to have these programs, but definitely something to think about.