Rawls Principles and Kristols Capitalist Conception - Essay Example

Rawls Principles and Kristol’s Capitalist Conception John Rawl’s principles of justice vis-à-vis Irving Kristol’s capitalist conception of justice There appears to be perfect agreement between Rawls and Kristol. Both argue that equality in liberality refers not to equality in wealth, but in the opportunity to create wealth. Kristol stated that equality of rights should assure people the chance to take advantage of favorable conditions, which, with hard work, should redound to their economic benefit.

Rawls believed the same; in his two principles of justice, he speaks of equality to access offices and positions in an equal manner, pertaining to equality of opportunity. Where these theorists diverge, however, is in their views of distributive justice. In his Difference Principle, Rawls advocates a socialist approach, in that responsibilities or burdens should be distributed according to ability, and benefits should be apportioned according to the peoples’ needs. For Kristol, economic rewards pertain to those who had created the good or service, and there is no central authority who determines the distribution of these rewards.

It is the unconsumed and unreinvested portion of this wealth that individuals, out of a sympathetic heart (according to Adam Smith) bestow among those who are in need. Were Rawls to take Kristol to task, he would probably comment with the challenge: The welfare of the disadvantaged could not depend on the sympathy or charity of the wealthy, because it is human nature to keep more than one can consume; ergo, the need for a central authority with sufficient compelling force to mandate contribution.

Both Rawls and Kristol’s opinions have basis in truth in modern life, but this writer adheres more to the soundness of Kristol’s opinions, as it is more consistent with the freedoms widely enjoyed in the modern era. Furthermore, the centralized system of distribution proposed by Rawls has already been abandoned as untenable and impractical by the more militant socialist economies of the 1980s. Joanne B. Ciulla and Ian Maitland on the propriety of sweatshops Matiland claims, in his article In Defense of International Sweatshops, that sweatshops are justified in paying lower wages to its workers in its sweatshops located in other countries: firstly, that the prevailing labor market wage rates in the host country is usually way below the rates in the home country; and secondly, the workers in the host countries are benefited far more than their countrymen.

Because of these benefits, the workers in multinationals’ sweatshops gladly accept these wages – they choose to be employed under these conditions, absolving the multinational employer of guilt. Furthermore, the government of the host country itself condones these low wages, in order to maintain the multinational’s presence in its economy and continue providing the jobs needed by its unemployed. Ciulla addresses this by metaphorically comparing the sweatshop workers with monkeys trained to perform tasks in agricultural production.

Workers should not be paid merely for their labor, but for their loss of freedom while they are occupied in their employment. Ciulla points out that the excuse, that the workers choose to work for low wages, is untenable. When workers are compelled to work for low pay in the absence of other alternatives, then the so-called choice ceases to be a free exercise of prerogative. The employer-multinational thus retains responsibility for their welfare. Between the two, while Ciulla’s arguments are noble and emotionally appealing, Maitland’s points come across as far more rational, pragmatic, and supported by fact.

It is true that poorer countries compete with each other on the basis of lower legislated minimum wage rates in their jurisdictions, and workers do vie aggressively for positions in these companies because, in truth, for majority of these multinational companies the wages are higher than the pay the workers get in other jobs, which often fall below minimum wage. Maitland however, ignores the situation when the multinational is not the direct employer. When it relies on local contractors who cut their share out of the contract price, the workers get paid truly exploitative rates, and under working conditions that are truly inhuman, in order to avoid costs.

Furthermore, Ciulla legitimately argues that the dignity of a decent living wage must be a consideration in setting wages for sweatshop worker. My preference for Maitland’s article over Ciulla’s does not significantly affect my actions; it merely hinges on the writing style. The articles are neither all encompassing nor exhaustive, and compromises exist that combine the best of both arguments. The assertions are not mutually exclusive; safeguards against exploitation have been instituted while still making the most of the lower-wage regime in other countries.

Through corporate-government cooperation, the workers’ dignity may be assured even as they are extended the benefits of employment. REFERENCE Kristol, Irving. “A Capitalist Conception of Justice” in De George, R.T & Pichler, J.A., ed., Ethics, Free Enterprise & Public Policy: Original Essays on Moral Issues in Business, University of Kansas, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pp. 57-69 Maitland, Ian, “In Defense of International Sweatshops, American Business and its Basis, Part II, InfoTrac College Edition, 1997.