John Rawls and distributive justice

(The reader will note that I addressed this issue some three years ago. Since then I have had some more time to reflect on the issue of distributive justice. I have also had the opportunity to re-read John Rawls' book, "A Theory of Justice." What follows here is the reformulated version of my older post - to include some more thoughts on the claims of distributive justice as it pertains to the issue of a natural lottery in the distribution of (dis)advantages.)

To a question posed to the world regarding the claims of distributive justice: Why shouldn't the government redistribute body parts? Since some people are born with physical problems, and others might have physical advantages, why, in the name of fairness, does government not require this kind of redistribution?

My Response:

Your premise misses a fundamental point regarding one of the purposes of distributive justice. One of the great purposes of redistribution is to avoid the artificial (Man-made) pooling of, say, wealth, in the hands of a few persons to the detriment of the many. Without organized redistribution there are few civilized methods for achieving this goal. Redistribution becomes one of the few methods society has of maintaining any sense of merit-based (or entitlement-based) distribution of goods - something a 'pooling' of resources clearly works against. The pooling of physical talents - or as your point suggests, the pooling of inferior physical qualities - does not easily fit into the claims of distributive justice. That is because, unlike the artificial pooling of assets and wealth in the hands of slave owners at the expense of slaves (producing inequalities that may persist for generations to come) it is just as likely that the slave's son, or the slave owner's son, will be born blind. Thus, it might be said: The natural distribution of physical advantages, or disadvantages, is neither just, nor unjust (unlike questions regarding the distribution or pooling of wealth, which will necessarily engage questions of justice). They are, quite simply, matters of fact. What is a matter of justice, however, is how we, and our institutions, deal with the results that flow from the unmerited advantages or disadvantages people derive from this natural distribution. Thus, it is the effects of such distributions and perhaps more importantly, humanity's ability to deal fairly and justly with the unmerited disadvantages and advantages that flow therefrom that distributive justice is most concerned to address.
T.D. Marshall

Dialogue vs. Debate: learning vs. entrenchment

Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together toward common understanding. Debate is oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong. In dialogue, finding common ground is the goal. In debate, winning is the goal. In dialogue, one listens to the other side(s) in order to understand, find meaning and find agreement. In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments. Dialogue enlarges and possibly changes a participants point of view. Debate affirms a participant's own point of view. Dialogue reveals assumptions for re-evaluation. Debate defends assumptions as truth. Dialogue causes introspection on ones own position. Debate causes critique of the other position. Dialogue opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original solutions. Debate defends one's own positions as the best solution and excludes other solutions. Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude: an openness to being wrong and an openness to change. Debate creates a close-minded attitude, a determination to be right. In dialogue, one submits ones best thinking, knowing that other people's reflections will help improve it rather than destroy it. In debate, one submits one's best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right. Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one's beliefs. Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one's beliefs. In dialogue, one searches for basic agreements. In debate, one searches for glaring differences. In dialogue one searches for strengths in the other positions. In debate one searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other position. Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend. Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and often belittles or deprecates the other person. Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can put them into a workable solution. Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it. Dialogue remains open-ended. Debate implies a conclusion. Adapted from a paper prepared by Shelley Berman, which was based on discussions of the Dialogue Group of the Boston Chapter of Educators for Social Responsibility (ESR).

Henry David Thoreau

One of my favorite writers and thinkers is Mr. Henry David Thoreau. Please follow the link to his most famous essay on "Civil Disobedience". It's a wonderful expression of the importance of following the Right, rather than the Rule; it being better to garner a respect for what is right rather than merely for the law. Henry David Thoreau