In his discussion of the conception of justice, Rawls notes the importance of stability. He states, "an important feature of a conception of justice is that it should generate its own support. Its principles should be such that when they are embodied in the basic structure of society men tend to acquire the corresponding sense of justice and develop a desire to act in accordance with its principles" (199). As people observe justice in the society around them, Rawls argues that they will feel the need to emulate such justice, leading to even more people feeling the need to act just. For Rawls, this "domino effect" for justice is both self-sustaining and ensures stability. Like feelings of self-respect, stability is dependent on public recognition, which leads society members to acquire "a desire to act in accordance with these principles and to do their part in institutions which exemplify them" (Rawls 154). Thus, justice is an inherent quality in a society that promotes stability because it consistently inspires people to act in a just way.
Rawls proceeds to criticize utilitarianism for its dependence on sympathy. He reasons that they only way for people to exist in a society where they will willingly sacrifice the quality of their own life for others is through an emphasis on "the role of sympathy in moral learning and the central place of benevolence among the moral virtues" (Rawls 155). Ultimately, Rawls argues that such a dependence on sympathy leads to an unstable society, "unless sympathy and benevolence can be widely and intensely cultivated" (Rawls 155). For Rawls, this promotion of sympathy is implausible, and people will inevitably seek a principle of reciprocal advantage instead.
I am not convinced of Rawls' separation between the qualities that lead to stability versus instability. His argument for justice as stability depends on a "domino effect" of justice within a society, but he denies the possibility of this same effect for sympathy. Can people not be inspired to feel selfless and act in the interest of others knowing it promotes the well-being of a society? I would argue that in the same way justice is inherent in Rawls' society, so sympathy could be inherent in a utilitarian society, and thus could be similarly encouraged. I believe that the reason Rawls denies this "domino effect" for utilitarian societies is not because of the nature of "sympathy" as a quality which cannot be promoted, but rather because Rawls is not convinced that sympathy is within human nature. I think that Rawls finds qualities within justice, such as self-interest, which he believes aligns better with his conception of human nature.
There have been a lot of great posts so far, including posts for this weeks seminar. But this is an example of what every post should want to look like when it grows up...pretty awesome, Nisha!
ReplyDeleteCan people not be inspired to feel selfless and act in the interest of others knowing it promotes the well-being of a society? is a really interesting question, Nish. Is altruism a distinctly irrational human decision? How I believe Rawls would respond is that a reasonable being would choose the two principles and then a rational being, under the veil, can make choices that may be "selfless" and may "act in the interest of others". He relies on the first, reasonable assumption that everyone wants a just society (but maybe aren't inherently "sympathetic") and is bought-in to the principles. Then, any altruistic, sympathetic action while operating under those principles would be a result of free decision-making. Just a guess!
ReplyDeleteNisha I think you bring up an interesting point about Rawls rejection of utilitarianism. When he brings up the requirement of sacrifice of those worse off for the betterment of society under utilitarianism he argues that it will inherently lead to a loss of self-confidence: "Surely it is
ReplyDeletenatural to experience a loss of self-respect, a weakening of our sense of
the value of accomplishing our aims, when we are already less favored.
This is particularly likely to be so when social cooperation is arranged for
the good of individuals" (Rawls, 157).
One thing that came to mind as contrary to this when I did the reading was the armed services. The commitment individuals that sign-up to join the military is inherently one of willingness to sacrifice, they agree to put their lives on the line in order to preserve american notions of freedom. I think it is also interesting to note that it is often individuals from the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum that enlist, seeking something that is in fact a boost of self-confidence, self-respect, and personal value: a situation quite different from the one that Rawls suggests.
ReplyDeleteNisha, I am so glad you brought this up! I was also intrigued by the significance that Rawls places on stability and his account of human nature. Since his conception of justice effortlessly aligns with human nature, mainly characterized by self-interest, Rawls considers a society governed by these two principles to be more stable than a utilitarian society that is based on sympathy. To answer your question, I think that, based on Rawls’ account of human nature, people cannot continuously be inspired to act selflessly and in the interest of others because sympathy is not inherently part of human nature, unlike self-interest. I would argue that Rawls views human nature as inherently selfish. For Rawls, our behavior and interactions with one another are dictated by self-interest, rather than sympathy. This view is illustrated in his portrayal of society. According to Rawls, society is predominantly characterized by self-interest. A society is not only “a cooperative venture for mutual advantage,” but is also “marked by a conflict as well as an identity of interests” (109). Since self-interest is our primary concern, we view that a society’s main role is to protect our self-interest. Thus, when a society meets this condition, “all acquire inclinations to uphold the scheme,” and as a result, stability is generated (153). According to Rawls, we prefer to adopt the two principles of justice, rather than the principle of utility, because a society governed by this framework ensures our self-interest, and thus, more stability. By maximizing the status of the least advantaged, the difference principle ensures that everyone benefits from this arrangement. Rawls establishes a direct correlation between self-interest and stability. The more assurance of self-interest, the more stable a society will be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete