While discussing the Original Position, Rawls argues that "it is clearly rational for men to secure their self-respect" (154). I want evaluate the significance of and implications of securing self-respect given inequality.
Rawls argues that "[u]nless we feel that our endeavors are respected by [others], it is difficult if not impossible for us to maintain the conviction that our ends are worth advancing" (154). Essentially, if our position on the social ladder is perceived as worthless we perceive ourselves as worthless. Crucially, our self-respect is largely a function of our perception of how others perceive us - that is, it's purely a result of social interaction. Further, living in a meritocracy or free market system actually exacerbates the inequalities with respect to self-worth. Those at the bottom of the ladder feel that their place at the bottom of the ladder is deserved / merited and is therefore a reflection of their inner worth; on the flip side, those at the top feel their inner worth reflected in their merit. This creates an intense system of status anxiety that ingrains class positions.
A system of feudalism, on the other hand, is actually free from much of the effect of status anxiety. Barring the atrocious destitution and brutality that serfs faced, those at the bottom of the pyramid were free from the toxic and psychologically tormenting effects of inequalities tied to merit. Everyone was born into their class division and - because there was no social mobility - never sweat over getting ahead of their peers. Peasants were peasants, knights were knights, lords were lords, and the king was king. Their position on the social ladder was not a reflection of self-worth, it was a reflection of divine and arbitrary placement, and, for the most part, it was generally accepted. This freed most from the psychological rat race.
Obviously, feudalism isn't a preferable system to our current system - but, we must acknowledge the impact a free market system has on the self worth of its citizens. During the Great Depression, many Americans suffered severe depression themselves as they blamed themselves for their inability to work and thus degraded their self-worth.
Even under Rawls' System of Justice, how do we ensure self-respect is maximized? So long as merited inequality exists, self-respect is imperiled. If, according to Rawls, "[s]elf-respect is not so much a part of any rational plan of life as the sense that one's plan is worth carrying out," how must we weight self-respect compared to other basic necessities? (154). If the vast majority of society finds their work purposeless, even if it is efficient - or, even if equality is maximized, what are we left with?
Inequality certainly exists under Rawls' System of Justice - but according to Rawls, these inequalities are still "arbitrary from a moral point of view". In his conception of society, differences such as class and wealth are very much the result of luck. Furthermore, even innate differences such as intelligence or brute strength are morally arbitrary. If one of the reasons for crafting 'Justice as Fairness' as a system that tries to equalize and mitigate inequalities is that Rawls believes these differences are arbitrary, how should this affect self-worth? Will members of a society constructed after 'Justice as Fairness' recognize this fact as it relates to the societal institutions? Perhaps members of society will recognize this in theory, but not in practice - maybe the prospect of any social mobility plays a larger role in self-worth than Rawls' own philosophical musings.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your claim that men would have more self-respect in a system of feudalism than in a free market system. You seem to assume that our self-worth is based on our place on the social ladder, or based on the success of our past endeavors. However, self-worth as Rawls defines it is based on the perception that one’s plans are worth fulfilling. In a system of feudalism, no one’s plans but those of the nobility class were respected. The plans of working class may have been valued, but only to the degree that they benefitted the ruling class. Any plans that were designed to raise the situation of the lower class were not considered worthwhile, and there was no incentive to assist those below you. In a free-market system, even if people have not yet succeeded, value is still placed in their endeavors. The difference principle is designed to incentivize people to view other’s work with respect and deserving of fruition. Because people are incentivized to assist the least advantaged person, the least advantaged person feels to an even greater degree that his plans are worth fulfilling. In addition, Rawls uses the difference principle in part because it does not produce a meritocracy. In a meritocracy, each pursues his own interest without regard to the success or failures of others. In a society with the difference principle, one pursues the good of all.
ReplyDelete