Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site tilt.FUN
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!tilt!chenr
From: chenr@tilt.FUN (Ray Chen)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Taking up Richard's gauntlet ...
Message-ID: <235@tilt.FUN>
Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 02:02:03 EST
Article-I.D.: tilt.235
Posted: Tue Feb 12 02:02:03 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Feb-85 06:47:48 EST
References: <326@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <4715@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: Princeton University EECS Dept
Lines: 52

First, my compliments to Barry Fagin for writing a calm, rational
article.  Now, to the point at hand...

Barry writes that
> All egalitarian philosophers with which I
> am familiar, from Marx to Rawls, imply or state right out that some kind
> of equality of wealth is desirable and go from there.

In the case of Rawls and Marx, this isn't true.  Rawls attempts to
describe a philosophical procedure for constructing a just society
The desired outcome is a society in which a person, given knowledge
of the society, the philosophical principles upon which that society
is based, and no knowledge of his place in that society or his
resources in terms of natural talents/inherited wealth, etc. would
choose to participate in.  This does not imply egalitarianism.  
As a matter of fact, inequalities are specifically allowed as long
as "they are to the benefit of the least advantaged".  In other
words, as long as the inequality in some way improves the lot
of EVERYONE in the society.  What is prohibited is the "rich get
richer and the poor get poorer cycle".  Or to be more precise,
"the more advantaged get more advantages and the less ..." as
advantaged is not defined in terms of wealth per se, but in primary
goods of which monetary resources/property are a subset.

For those of you interested in Rawls, I'd suggest reading A Theory
of Justice, The Dewey Lectures, and "Fairness to Goodness" by
John Rawls.  A Theory of Justice alone no longer suffices as there
have been significant improvements to his theory since then.
The Dewey Lectures and "Fairness to Goodness" were both published in
The Journal of Philosophy.

As for Marx, my classical Marxism is a little fuzzy.  However,
Marx's main point was that control of the means of production
influences the political structure of a society.  This has since been
refined (and a good thing too, or classical Marxism would have gone the
way of the buffalo in theory-land) by the Frankfurt School of
Philosophy to the idea of a critical theory, ideology, false
consciousness, and their roles in political theory, none of which have
ANYTHING to do with egalitarianism.

In short, while classical Marxism and Rawls advocate a form of
egalitarianism under certain circumstances, I'd hardly label
them as egalitarian philosophers.  Rawls' theory is a contract
theory.  While agents in his Original Position are equal in some
respects, I don't think that merits labeling the theory as egalitarian
as neither economic nor civil (having to do with rights) equality is
a mandated result of his Original Position.  Neither is classical
Marxism really egalitarian as the primary theoretical problem is the
influence of control of the means of production on society.

	Ray Chen
	princeton!tilt!chenr