A Challenge to Neo-Lockeanism

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

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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,764

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

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 (2009):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 S. 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
2017-02-17

Downloads
12 (#920,243)

6 months
4 (#314,006)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Distributive Justice and the Complex Structure of Ownership.John Chrstman - 1994 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 23 (3):225-250.

Add more citations

References found in this work

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.
Equality of talent.John E. Roemer - 1985 - Economics and Philosophy 1 (2):151-.

View all 8 references / Add more references