justice 08哈佛大学公开课公正Whats a Fair StartWhat Do We Deserve 什么是公平的起点我们该得到.docx

justice 08哈佛大学公开课公正Whats a Fair StartWhat Do We Deserve 什么是公平的起点我们该得到.docx

《justice 08哈佛大学公开课公正Whats a Fair StartWhat Do We Deserve 什么是公平的起点我们该得到.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《justice 08哈佛大学公开课公正Whats a Fair StartWhat Do We Deserve 什么是公平的起点我们该得到.docx（25页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

justice08哈佛大学公开课公正WhatsaFairStartWhatDoWeDeserve什么是公平的起点我们该得到

Justice08What’saFairStart?

/WhatDoWeDeserve?

什么是公平的起点？

/我们该得到什么？

Today,weturntothequestionofdistributivejustice.

Howshouldincomeinwealthandpowerandopportunitiesbedistributed?

Accordingtowhatprinciples?

JohnRawlsoffersadetailedanswertothatquestion.

Andwe'regoingtoexamineandassesshisanswertothatquestion,today.

Weputourselvesinapositiontodosolasttime.

Bytryingtomakesenseofwhyhethinksthatprinciplesofjusticearebestderivedfromahypotheticalcontract.

Andwhatmattersisthatthehypotheticalcontractbecarriedoutinanoriginalpositionofequality,behind,whatRawlscalls,theveilofignorance.

Sothatmuchisclear?

Alright,thenlet'sturntotheprinciplesthatRawlssayswouldbechosenbehindtheveilofignorance.

First,heconsideredsomeofthemajoralternatives.

Whataboututilitarianism?

Wouldthepeopleintheoriginalpositionchoosetogoverntheircollectivelivesutilitarianprinciples,thegreatestgoodforthegreatestnumber?

No,theywouldn't,Rawlssays.

Andthereasonis,thatbehindtheveilofignorance,everyoneknowsthatoncetheveilgoesup,andreallifebegins,wewilleachwanttoberespectedwithdignity.

Evenifweturnouttobeamemberofaminority.

Wedon'twanttobeoppressed.

Andsowewouldagreetorejectutilitarianism,andinsteadtoadoptasourfirstprinciple,equalbasicliberties.

Fundamentalrightstofreedomofspeech,freedomofassembly,religiousliberty,freedomofconscienceandthelike.

Wewouldn'twanttotakethechancethatwewouldwindupasmembersofanoppressedoradespisedminoritywiththemajoritytyrannizingoverus.

AndsoRawlssaysutilitarianismwouldberejected."Utilitarianismmakesthemistake",Rawlswrites,"offorgetting,oratleastnottakingseriously,thedistinctionbetweenpersons."Andintheoriginalpositionbehindtheveilofignorance,wewouldrecognizethatandrejectutilitarianism.

Wewouldn'ttradeoffourfundamentalrightsandlibertiesforanyeconomicadvantages.

That'sthefirstprinciple.

Secondprinciplehastodowithsocialandeconomicinequalities.

Whatwouldweagreeto?

Remember,wedon'tknowwhetherwe'regoingtowinduprichorpoor.

Healthyorunhealthy.

Wedon'tknowwhatkindoffamilywe'regoingtocomefrom.

Whetherwe'regoingtoinheritmillionsorwhetherwewillcomefromanimpoverishedfamily.

Sowemight,atfirstthought,say,"Welllet'srequireanequaldistributionofincomeandwealth."Justtobeonthesafeside.

Butthenwewouldrealize,thatwecoulddobetterthanthat.

Evenifwe'reunluckyandwindupatthebottom.

Wecoulddobetterifweagreetoaqualifiedprincipleofequality.

Rawlscallsit"theDifferencePrinciple".

Aprinciplethatsays,onlythosesocialandeconomicinequalitieswillbepermittedthatworktothebenefitoftheleastwelloff.

Sowewouldn'trejectallinequalityofincomeandwealth.

Wewouldallowsome.

Butthetestwouldbe,dotheyworktothebenefitofeveryoneincludingthose,orashespecifies,theprinciple,especiallythoseatthebottom.

Onlythoseinequalitieswouldbeacceptedbehindtheveilofignorance.

AndsoRawlsargues,onlythoseinequalitiesthatworktothebenefitoftheleastwelloff,arejust.

WetalkedabouttheexamplesofMichaelJordanmaking81OfBillGateshavingafortuneinthetensofbillions.

Wouldthoseinequalitiesbepermittedunderthedifferenceprinciple?

Onlyiftheywerepartofasystem,thosewagedifferentials,thatactuallyworktotheadvantageofleastwelloff.

Well,whatwouldthatsystembe?

Maybeitturnsoutthatasapracticalmatteryouhavetoprovideincentivestoattracttherightpeopletocertainjobs.

Andwhenyoudo,havingthosepeopleinthosejobswillactuallyhelpthoseatthebottom.

Strictlyspeaking,Rawls'sargumentforthedifferenceprincipleisthatitwouldbechosenbehindtheveilofignorance.

LetmehearwhatyouthinkaboutRawls'sclaimthatthesetwoprincipleswouldbechosenbehindtheveilofignorance.

Isthereanyonewhodisagreesthattheywouldbechosen?

Alright,let'sstartupinthebalcony,ifthat'salright.

Goahead.

OK,yourargumentdependsuponusbelievingthatwewouldargueinsaidpolicy,orjusticefromabottom.

Forthedisadvantaged.

AndIjustdon'tseefromaproofstandpoint,wherewe'veproventhat.

Whynotthetop?

Right,andwhat'syourname?

-Mike.

Mike,alright,goodquestion.

Putyourselfbehindtheveilofignorance.

Enterintothethoughtexperiment.

Whatprincipleswouldyouchoose?

Howwouldyouthinkitthrough?

Well,Iwouldsaythingslike,evenHarvard'sexistenceisanexampleofpreachingtowardthetop.

BecauseHarvardtakesthetopacademics.

AndIdidn'tknowwhenIwasbornhowsmartIwouldbe.

ButIworkedmylifetogettoaplaceofthiscaliber.

Now,ifyouhadsaidHarvard'sgoingtorandomlytake1600peopleofabsolutelynoqualification,we'dallbesaying,"There'snotmuchtoworkfor."Andsowhatprinciplewouldyouchoose?

InthatsituationIwouldsayameritbasedone.

OnewhereIdon'tnecessarilyknow,butIwouldratherhaveasystemthatrewardsmebasedonmyefforts.

Soyou,Mike,behindtheveilofignorance,wouldchooseamerit-basedsystem,wherepeoplearerewardedaccordingtotheirefforts?

Alright,fairenough.

Whatwouldyousay?

Goahead.

Myquestionis,ifthemerit-basedargumentisbasedonwheneveryoneisatalevelofequality?

Wherefromthatposition,you'rerewardedtowhereyouget,orisitregardlessofwhatadvantagesyoumayhavewhenyoubeganyoureducationtogetwhereyouarehere?

Ithinkwhatthequestionyou'reaskingissayingthatifwewanttolookat,whatever,utilitarianism,policy,doyouwanttomaximizeworldwealth.

AndIthinkasystemthatrewardsmeritistheonethatwe'veprettymuchallestablished,iswhatisbestforallofus.

Despitethefactthatsomeofusmaybeinthesecondpercentileandsomemaybeinthe98thpercentile.

Attheendofthedayitliftsthatlowestbasedlevel,acommunitythatrewardseffortasopposedtoandifferences.

But,Idon'tunderstandhowyou'rerewardssomeone'seffortswhoclearlyhashad,notyou,butmaybemyself,advantagesthroughout,togetwhereIamhere.

Imean,Ican'tsaythatsomebodyelsewhomaybeworkedashardasIdidwouldhavehadthesameopportunitytocometoaschoollikethis.

Alright,let'slookatthatpoint.

What'syourname?

Kate.-Kate,yoususpectthattheabilitytogetintotopschoolsmaylargelydependoncomingfromanaffluentfamily.

Havingafavorablefamilybackground,social,cultural,economicadvantagesandsoon?

Imean,economic,butyes,social,cultural.

Allofthoseadvantages,forsure.

Someonedidastudy,ofthe146selectivecollegesanduniversitiesintheUnitedStates.

Andtheylookedatthestudentsinthosecollegesanduniversitiestotrytofindoutwhattheirbackgroundwas,theireconomicbackground.

Whatpercentagedoyouthink,comefromthebottomquarteroftheincomescale?

Youknowwhatthefigureis?

Onlythreepercentofstudents,atthemostselectivecollegesanduniversitiescomefrompoorbackgrounds.

Over70percentcomefromaffluentfamilies.

Let'sgoonestepfurtherthen,andtrytoaddressMike'schallenge.

Rawlsactuallyhastwoarguments,notone,infavorofhisprinciplesofjustice.

Andinparticular,ofthedifferenceprinciple.

Oneargumentistheofficialargument,whatwouldbechosenbehindtheveilofignorance.

Somepeoplechallengethatargument,saying,"Maybepeoplewouldwanttotaketheirchances.

Maybepeoplewouldbegamblersbehindtheveilofignorance.

Hopingthattheywouldwindupontop."That'sonechallengethathasbeenputtoRawls.

Butbackinguptheargumentfromtheoriginalpositionisthesecondargument.

Andthatisthestraightforwardlymoralargument.

Anditgoeslikethis,itsays,thedistributionofincomeandwealthandopportunitiesshouldnotbebasedonfactorsforwhichpeoplecanclaimnocredit.

Itshouldn'tbebasedonfactorsthatarearbitraryfromamoralpointofview.

Rawlsillustratesthisbyconsideringseveralrivaltheoriesofjustice.

Hebeginswiththetheoryofjusticethatmosteveryonethesedayswouldreject.

Afeudalaristocracy.

What'swrongwiththeallocationoflifeprospectsinafeudalaristocracy?

Rawlssays,wellthethingthat'sobviouslywrongaboutitisthatpeople'slifeprospectsaredeterminedbytheaccidentofbirth.

Areyouborntoanoblefamilyortoafamilyofpeasantsandserfs?

Andthat'sit.

Youcan'trise.

It'snotyourdoingwhereyouwinduporwhatopportunitiesyouhave.

Butthat'sarbitraryfromamoralpointofview.

Andsothatobjectiontofeudalaristocracyleads,andhistoricallyhaslead,peopletosay,careersshouldbeopentotalents.

Thereshouldbeformalequalityofopportunityregardlessoftheaccidentofbirth.

Everypersonshouldbefreetostrive,towork,toapplyforanyjobinthesociety.

Andthen,ifyouopenupjobs,andyouallowpeopletoapply,andtoworkashardastheycan,thentheresultsarejust.

Soit'smoreorlessthelibertariansystemthatwe'vediscussedinearlierweeks.

WhatdoesRawlsthinkaboutthis?

Hesaysit'sanimprovement.

It'sanimprovementbecauseitdoesn'ttakeasfixedtheaccidentofbirth.

Butevenwithformalequalityofopportunitythelibertarianconceptiondoesn'textendthat,doesn'textenditsinsightfarenough.

Becauseifyouleteverybodyruntherace,everybodycanentertherace,butsomepeoplestartatdifferentstartingpoints,thatraceisn'tgoingtobefair.

Intuitively,hesays,themost