I might have discovered a principle of distributive justice! :O

Wow. Who would’ve thunk it?

Chris emailed me yesterday.

88/100 (raw), so pretty darn good. Loved your response to the distributive justice question.

And today.

Btw, that answer of yours, …. aaaahh, it would make for such a kickass Master’s thesis, Ph.D. dissertation, … or (depending on what the state of the philosophical art is on the subject) professional article. I’m definitely going to be thinking about it more myself.

Wow. I admit, I am floored. Can I confess that I only thought of that answer, like, as I was answering that question?

The distributive justice question was essentially this: ideally, how would justice require you to allocate some good (in this course, genetic enhancements to improve the genes of unborn children) in society? My answer was that it had to be that genetic enhancements be first allocated to the least advantaged members of society before they be allocated to the better off. So far, so standard: this is nothing more than John Rawls’s Difference Principle.

Chris and I have problems with the way Rawls argued for the Difference Principle. I knew I wanted to get Rawls, i.e. the Difference Principle, without using Rawls, i.e. the veil of ignorance and his really bad idea of close-knitness.

I started with Rawls’s observation that no one deserves their advantages because no one chooses what kind of genes and circumstances they are born into. Since the rich and powerful do not deserve their wealth, allocating goods via the free market will not be just since some people will undeservedly get more than others.

So far, so standard. The problem is how to get to the next step of claiming that the Difference Principle is just. Chris had told us this question was coming out for sure weeks before the paper. My best answer after weeks of thought was that since no one deserves anything anyway, desert (which means “deservingness” by the way) is not a consideration in distributive justice. Then we must look to the next consideration: fairness. The Difference Principle is fair because it reduces the unfairness of some people being born into less happiness than others.

But I didn’t want to talk about fairness. What is fairness? How do you define it? I didn’t want to get into all that. I wanted some argument that did not resort to vague, undefined concepts like fairness.

And then I thought of it. On the spot, I wrote it down. And the moment I did, I was happy with it. And so, it seems, is Chris.

Not bad for a last-minute answer, eh? Maybe I should consider doing Philosophy seriously…

P.S. I am not going to post what I wrote here. Intellectual property. Haha. It was just one sentence. That’s all I’m going to say. If I’m right, then I’ve discovered a principle of distributive justice. Yay. If only it would help me get a job, like, right now. In the meantime, I guess I should start writing a paper on that…

P.P.S. Someone please hire me before I actually start thinking about it seriously and apply to Arizona!

Advertisement