Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Bridge between Rawls & Nozick (RAWLS (Problem 1: DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE,…
-
-
does accept inequalities by choice - but does not accept inequalities by unchosen circumstances - generate redistributive state action
accept inequalities - whether from choice or unchosen circumstances - as long as the three principles of his entitlements theory are not violated
-
- Circumstances morally arbitrary
-
-
- Room for voluntary charity
-
-
- Taxation only allowed to maintain institutions needed to uphold the third principle of rectification
-
- Pierre lazy mathematician
-
- Mary: productive/high spirited wheel-chair bound
- does not say how the difference principle should be distributed in actual societies
- welfare state institutions: all dealing with cases of BAD BRUTE LUCK
- pre-existing conditions: burn with bad health; not be able to buy insurance for (burning) house
- worse-off persons in society do not have resources to buy insurance
-
-
- Equal power in insurance market
- Equal access to information
- the moment people buy insurance, no one is handicaped
- but we do know that we all run the risk of falling ill
- Numbers who are inflicted by limitation stays the same
- Preference about risk does not change
- Decision made by individuals following preferences / following own idea about risk
- But against background of justice: same starting point
-
- Inequalities justified after veil of ignorance
-
e.g. some might choose to much insurance, cost you a lot of premium
-
- Inequalities between individuals cannot be too large - even if they are justified in the choice/circumstance distinction
- EQUALITY: unchosen circumstances/choice
- required for human relationships to take a desirable form
-
-
-
- After you have done your duty (tax), you are free to spend your money on stupid things
- first you pay taxes, but still worse off? you are morally required to take egalitarian ethos seriously and apply the principle in your private life