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Word文档格式.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Word文档格式.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Word文档格式.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Word文档格式.docx（25页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

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.

ttradeoffourfundamentalrightsandlibertiesforanyeconomicadvantages.

That'

sthefirstprinciple.

Secondprinciplehastodowithsocialandeconomicinequalities.

Whatwouldweagreeto?

Remember,wedon'

tknowwhetherwe'

regoingtowinduprichorpoor.

Healthyorunhealthy.

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?

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.

slookatthatpoint.

What'

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.

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.

sanimprovementbecauseitdoesn'

ttakeasfixedtheaccidentofbirth.

Butevenwithformalequalityofopportunitythelibertarianconceptiondoesn'

textendthat,doesn'

textenditsinsightfarenough.

Becauseifyouleteverybodyruntherace,everybodycanentertherace,butsomepeoplestartatdifferentstartingpoints,thatraceisn'

tgoingtobefair.

Intuitively,hesays,themost