Canadian Journal of Philosophy 18 (4):697-710 (1988)

Abstract
The neo-Lockean justification of the highly unequal distribution of income in capitalist societies is based upon two key premises: that people are the rightful owners of their labor and talents, and that the external world was, in the state of nature, unowned, and therefore up for grabs by people, who could rightfully appropriate parts of it subject to a ‘Lockean proviso.’ The argument is presented by Nozick. Counter-proposals to Nozick’s, for the most part, have either denied the premise that people should morally be viewed as the owners of their talents, or have challenged Nozick’s Lockean proviso.Rawls, and to a more limited extent Ronald Dworkin, deny self-ownership. As Rawls writes: ‘…the difference principle represents, in effect, an agreement to regard the distribution of natural talents as a common asset … The naturally advantaged are not to gain merely because they are more gifted, but only to cover the costs of training and education and for using their endowments in ways that help the less fortunate as well. No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favorable starting place in society.’ Behind the Rawlsian veil of ignorance, those who deliberate about justice are deprived of knowledge about characteristics whose distribution is morally arbitrary. In Dworkin’s proposal for resource egalitarianism, agents calculate the insurance policy they would hypothetically ask for, were they denied knowledge of what talents they will draw in the birth lottery. Compensation for unequal talents is, according to Dworkin, properly made by taxing and transferring income according to the way it would have been distributed as a consequence of such insurance. Dworkin’s veil of ignorance is thin, because agents in the appropriate posture for deliberating about income distribution know their preferences and attitudes toward risk, but not their talents. For both Rawls and Dworkin, the self-ownership premise is challenged by constructing a veil of ignorance in which people are deprived of knowledge of certain personal characteristics, knowledge of which would bias their opinions, from a moral viewpoint.
Keywords Contemporary Philosophy  General Interest
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 0045-5091
DOI cjphil198818440
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,192
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Anarchy, State, and Utopia.Robert Nozick - 1974 - Philosophy 52 (199):102-105.
What is Equality? Part 1: Equality of Welfare.Ronald Dworkin - 1981 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 10 (3):185-246.
Morals by Agreement.David Copp - 1986 - Philosophical Review 98 (3):411-414.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Challenge to Neo-Lockeanism.John E. Roemer - 1988 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 18 (4):697 - 710.
Neo-Lockeanism and Circularity.Scott Campbell - 2001 - Philosophia 28 (1-4):477-489.
Animalism Versus Lockeanism: No Contest.David Mackie - 1999 - Philosophical Quarterly 49 (196):369-376.
Animalism Vs.David Mackie - 1999 - Lockeanism 49:369-76.
Anti-Climacus and Neo-Lockeanism.Patrick Stokes - 2009 - Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook 2009 (1):529-558.
Neuroethics, Neo-Lockeanism, and Embodied Subjectivity.Grant Gillett - forthcoming - Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 20 (1):43-46.
"Locked In": De Maistre's Critique of French Lockeanism.E. D. Watt - 1971 - Journal of the History of Ideas 32 (1):129.
Animalism and Deferentialism.Chris Daly & David Liggins - 2013 - Dialectica 67 (4):605-609.
Animalism Versus Lockeanism: A Current Controversy.Harold W. Noonan - 1998 - Philosophical Quarterly 48 (192):302-318.
Physicalism and Neo-Lockeanism About Persons.Joungbin Lim - 2016 - Philosophical Psychology 29 (8):1229-1240.
The Falsification Challenge.J. Kellenberger - 1969 - Religious Studies 5 (1):69 - 76.
To Bridge Gödel’s Gap.Eileen Nutting - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (8):2133-2150.
The Cognitive Significance of Phenomenal Knowledge.Bénédicte Veillet - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (11):2955-2974.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-02-17

Total views
8 ( #1,006,645 of 2,507,063 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #277,393 of 2,507,063 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes