John Rawls on the Fair and Just Society

[Sunstone]

Well I expect you to know and explore my favorite bits first.

The real reason I ask is that it seems so essential to Rawls and from which his theories flow. I will just assume you are saving it for an entire thread the consumption of which I anticipate with bated breath.

I just now touched lightly on Rawls' original position argument in post #20. But you and I share an enthusiasm for the subject. Like you, it's what strikes me as most interesting about Rawl's social justice theory. It hurt to leave it out of the OP.

And I love your idea of a separate thread on it alone!

 

[Valjean]

In societies without the capacity to accumulate wealth or food, that have nothing that can't be picked up and carried to the next camp, and where everyone has a more or less equal skillset, there is little opportunity for rapacity or hierarchy even among dominant or type A personalities.

 

[Nous]

Yes, there are several independent lines of evidence. Of course, the evidence is not absolute because we have no means of time travel. But so far as I can find out, there are few, if any, scientists who doubt that our species were hunter/gatherers and egalitarian -- even (as some of the foremost folks in the field have described it) "fiercely egalitarian".

Perhaps the "biggest" line of evidence are the studies done on the earth's last remaining hunting/gathering groups. Peter Gray -- although he is not a scientist working in the field -- sums up the findings better than most people I've read do:



Of course, the reasoning here is that contemporary hunting/gathering groups closely resemble the hunting/gathering groups of the past and distant past. So far as I can see, there's no substantial reason to doubt that beyond the simplistic claim "We just don't know for sure."

Another line of evidence is based on grave goods. The reasoning goes that, if hunting/gathering societies of the past had routinely been stratified, then we might see large differences in the quantity and quality of grave goods that people were buried with -- just like we find in some known stratified societies, such as ancient Egypt or the Albania of the 1980s. In fact, we have one or two instances (from Russia) where that is the case. In one instance, an individual was buried with such a huge number of beads that it probably took 30,000 man-hours to manufacture all of them! But that guy is by all accounts an outlier. It's almost always the case there's not much difference in grave goods between one ancient hunter/gatherer grave and another.

There are some other lines of evidence, but I think you must get the picture by now.

Thank you muchly. I was ignorant of all of this evidence. The article was very informative, and the evidence from grave goods makes perfect sense. Of course, I suppose humans are not going to recapture living in small groups of 30-50 anytime soon.

 

[Sunstone]

In societies without the capacity to accumulate wealth or food, that have nothing that can't be picked up and carried to the next camp, and where everyone has a more or less equal skillset, there is little opportunity for rapacity or hierarchy even among dominant or type A personalities.

That's quite true, Valjean. There are strong practical reasons that hunting/gathering societies, especially, are egalitarian. Beyond those practical reasons, there seem to me to be equally strong psychological reasons why they are egalitarian.

Basically, I would argue that humans have evolved be happiest when both their social and individual needs are met. That is, their innate emotional needs for other people, and their innate emotional needs for personal autonomy and freedom. Egalitarianism is a way of maximizing the likelihood of both sets of needs being met.

For instance, if someone in a hunting/gathering band were to somehow become powerful enough to force others to do his or her bidding, that would no doubt outrage many or most members of the band because they would see it as threatening their need for autonomy and freedom. Hence, I would expect them to do what it takes to "knock down" the person who has risen up over them.

And in fact, that is exactly what anthropologists studying hunting/gathering groups have found happens over and over again. Just as soon as one person gets a bit more powerful than the others, the others gang up on him or her to "put them in their place."

 

[Sunstone]

Of course, I suppose humans are not going to recapture living in small groups of 30-50 anytime soon.

I don't either. The article I cited proposed a cultural explanation for the egalitarianism of hunting/gathering groups. I think that's only part of it. I personally believe -- along with some others -- that there might also be genetic reasons humans are "naturally" egalitarian (except in the rather extraordinary circumstances of our recent hierarchical societies). If so, then perhaps we are now fated to live in societies we are not fully evolved to live in -- with all sorts of consequences.

I certainly wouldn't want to return to hunting/gathering though.

 

[Nous]

My thought would be that such socially toxic inclinations have always existed within and among us, but that the circumstances of the moment can either enable or discourage them. As the 'reality of morality' tends to be dictated by the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Interestingly it seems to me undeniable that humans are becoming more moral and just, and have done so throughout recorded history. Watching people get shredded by hungry lions was a spectator sport for the ancient Romans. Queen Elizabeth I rhapsodized about the joys of bear-baiting. Every ancient society legally instituted slavery of some population, and the oppression and denigration of women. But in the past, people were not afraid to say that some things are wrong, immoral, unjust, and that the above things were wrong. In a society that has legalized slavery, there is only one argument against it, and that argument is that slavery is morally wrong, unjust. With today's fairly widespread rejection of the existence of objective moral facts, that argument against slavery and other legal injustices no longer exists.

 

[Nous]

Good question. Thanks!

Rawls is not arguing that his notion of a just and fair society somehow entails or demands that people subscribe to it. Rather, he only argues that it is a rational position to take -- if one wants a just and fair society in the first place.

His means of demonstrating the rationality of his principles is his "original position" argument. Basically, that argument boils down to asking what kind of principles one would want to structure a society if (1) one had to live in that society, but (2) didn't know the position that one would have in the society before answering the question.

An analogy would be that you were asked to design a computer game. You are told that you will later on be inserted into that game as a player, but you are told absolutely nothing about the role you will have, the character you will play, etc. The question then becomes, what is the most rational game design if you first and foremost want the game to be just and fair to all players (so that regardless of what character you later on get when you are inserted into the game, the game will be just and fair for you).

Yes, egalitarianism is definitely rational. It is very, very bad that that fact has been lost in the US the past couple of decades.

 

[Shadow Link]

As it happens, Rawls was not an utilitarian. His theory is widely regarded as offering an alternative to utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism holds that we should do what most benefits a majority of people. "The greatest good for the greatest possible number.

I would guess he believed that happiness would pretty much follow from a society being just and fair.

Yes, that's the interesting part. He's basically defining Utilitarianism as lacking justice and fairness. The definition itself doesn't seem to do that.

 

[PureX]

Interestingly it seems to me undeniable that humans are becoming more moral and just, and have done so throughout recorded history. Watching people get shredded by hungry lions was a spectator sport for the ancient Romans. Queen Elizabeth I rhapsodized about the joys of bear-baiting. Every ancient society legally instituted slavery of some population, and the oppression and denigration of women. But in the past, people were not afraid to say that some things are wrong, immoral, unjust, and that the above things were wrong. In a society that has legalized slavery, there is only one argument against it, and that argument is that slavery is morally wrong, unjust. With today's fairly widespread rejection of the existence of objective moral facts, that argument against slavery and other legal injustices no longer exists.

I think you are making an important observation, but not one that has resulted in significant changes in us, just yet. I think the corruption that we are currently witnessing does have a new cause, but is not yet much more profound than it has ever been, among we humans.

Relativism (not just moral relativism, but the conceptual realization of how the relationship of the observer to the observed changes the facts being observed) is a fairly recent revelation to the collective human psyche. It is so recent that it's still percolating through global culture with all the usual fits and fights that come with such a profound philosophical revelation. It's the main reason we are experiencing so much push-back from 'fundamentalists' of all sorts; political, religious, economic, cultural, and so on, all over the world. The dismantling effect of relativism on traditional moral codes and beliefs is a big part of that push-back. But ultimately the push-back will fail, because we cannot, now, un-know what we have learned regarding the relative nature of the human condition, and of human understanding. New ways are going to have to be found for establishing and maintaining our moral standards, as a result. And this is going to take some time, and some significant restructuring of the way humans see themselves in the world. And this kind of change is not going to come easily, or without turmoil.

 

[Valjean]

Interestingly it seems to me undeniable that humans are becoming more moral and just, and have done so throughout recorded history. Watching people get shredded by hungry lions was a spectator sport for the ancient Romans. Queen Elizabeth I rhapsodized about the joys of bear-baiting. Every ancient society legally instituted slavery of some population, and the oppression and denigration of women. But in the past, people were not afraid to say that some things are wrong, immoral, unjust, and that the above things were wrong. In a society that has legalized slavery, there is only one argument against it, and that argument is that slavery is morally wrong, unjust. With today's fairly widespread rejection of the existence of objective moral facts, that argument against slavery and other legal injustices no longer exists.

I doubt human psychology or neurology has changed significantly. I think the changes are cultural.
When society collapses we'll likely find ourselves back in a hierarchic, manorial system.