Comparative Analysis of John Rawls Justice as Fairness and Irving Kristols A Capitalist Conception of Justice - Essay Example

Comparative Analysis of John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness and Irving Kristol’s A Capitalist Conception of Justice It is the stated theses of this essay that John Rawls’ essay Justice as Fairness presents a better solution for the problem of social injustices. Both John Rawls and Irving Kristol employ reason and common sense in arriving at their conclusions. Yet, while John Rawls’s inferences make no unwarranted assumptions, Kristol’s premises can be a matter of debate. It is the purpose of the rest of this essay to analyze passages written by these two scholars and to measure their strengths and weaknesses. In doing so, I hope to prove the veracity of the aforementioned theses. In A Capitalist Conception of Justice, Irving Kristol asserts that “Capitalism says there ought to be no official barriers to economic opportunity. If one is born of handsome or talented parents, if one inherits a musical skill, or mathematical skill, or whatever, that is simply good luck...Capitalism believes that, through equal opportunity, each individual will pursue his happiness as he defines it, and as far as his natural assets (plus luck, good or bad) will permit.” (Kristol, from the text, p.214) The flaw with this argument is that an individual gets economically rewarded for those attributes of his person that he did not cultivate, evolve or learn of his own industry and enterprise. In other words, talents in rendering music, mathematical ability and good looks, etc are to a large extent genetically determined. So what we see here is a subtle form of Eugenics. There are also shades of Social Darwinism attached to Kristol’s hypothesis, wherein the capitalist system will eliminate those individuals who are unable to contribute to the economy. It is also impetuous of Kristol to state that “luck” is a valid determinant of human dignity. To imply that the indignation suffered by those living in absolute poverty is a matter of bad fortune while the luxuries enjoyed by the rich minority are attributable to an element of good luck is too simplistic an argument to make. In making a comparison between “social justice” and “capitalism” Kristol mentions how capitalism is neither egalitarian nor authoritarian. One gets an impression that there is no virtue in aspiring for an egalitarian society and that authoritarianism is inherently defective. Both the conceptions are false. First of all, the merits of an egalitarian society are self-evident. Secondly, authoritarianism is not a decadent concept as the author would have us believe. In Irving Kristol’s own words, “The idea of ‘social justice’, however, assumes not only that government will intervene but that government will have, should have, and can have an authoritative knowledge as to what everyone merits or deserves in terms of the distribution of income and wealth…The assumption that the government is able to make such decisions wisely, and therefore that government should make such decisions, violates the very premises of a liberal community.” (Kristol, from the text, p.217) There are objections to this line of argument. First of all, isn’t it a universal principle of justice and decency that no section of humanity should be living in absolute poverty? In this particular case, is there even a need for an authority? Do we need a group of scientists dressed in white coats to declare that no section of humanity should starve, lack basic housing and be deprived of healthcare? Hence, Irving Kristol makes a mistake by assuming that there is a need for some superior authority that could make decisions on behalf of its citizens. Seeing to it that no compatriot of his/her is deprived of basic necessities of life is a social obligation of every citizen. It is on this foundation of common community interest that modern nation-states are formed. In this context, there can be no question of not knowing what is in the interest of all its members and who will make collective decisions on their behalf. The common interests, as in providing basic needs, are inherent elements of modern nation-states and the decisions were already made. Rawls on the other hand, makes a more persuasive case for his two principles of justice. In Rawls’ own words, the principles were, “First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and b) attached to positions and offices open to all” (Rawls, from the text, 209) These two principles are distinct from Kristol’s thesis in that they make very little assumption. For instance, Kristol cites Adam Smith, stating that the latter believed that individuals in a capitalist system will not lose their humanness and will take pleasure in the act of helping the less endowed. In real world of course, human beings are not so altruistic and philanthropic as Adam Smith would have us believe. Moreover, beliefs do not always derive from facts. All we can say about Kristol’s optimistic view of a flourishing philanthropy in the capitalist setup is that it is a far-fetched and utopian dream. It is ironic then that Irving Kristol accuses the “social justice” principles as utopian. The two principles proposed by John Rawls form an incontrovertible compact for basing social arrangements. After all, who would contest a proposal for equal political rights. And where unequal wealth, power or privilege exists, it is with the consent of the rest of the society. Also, the positions of power and privilege are open to all members of the society and such an inequality is created on collective consensus in order for the entire community to benefit. As mentioned before, John Rawls’ proposed principles of justice are almost impossible to improve upon; at least for those who believe in values of democracy and justice. Another flaw in Irving Kristol’s essay is its undue emphasis on differentiating between capitalism and social justice. It is true that there are technical differences in the conception of these two socio-economic systems, but midway through the essay the author loses focus on supporting his case for Capitalism and digresses into the incompatibility of the two systems. Of course, the two systems are radically different from one another. What is the relevance of this distinction in his construction of a case for capitalism? In conclusion, it is quite clear that John Rawls’ thought on socio-economic justice is based on human universalities that are self-evident in themselves. On the other hand, Irving Kristol’s attempt to redeem the reputation of capitalism had met only partial success. In spite of Kristol’s apologetic efforts, the image of capitalism as an inhumane economic system still remains. Hence, the stated thesis of this essay has been proven correct and that John Rawls’ essay Justice as Fairness presents a better solution for problems of social injustice. References (From the Text): Rawls, John., Justice as Fairness, pages: 208-210. Kristol, Irving., A Capitalist Conception of Justice, pages: 213-218. Read More