The crux of Rawls' argument, IIRC, is that if we were setting up a system ex nihilo (in the original position) before we knew our place in society, our family, character or intelligence ('behind the veil of ignorance'), the only system we would all agree to would be one of fundamental equality that did not advantange anyone on the basis of wealth, family, character or intelligence.
I happen to think Rawls' point is fundamentally wrong, that even one who realized he might find himself less advantaged in real life, if setting up a system in the original position behind the veil of ignorance, might well agree to a system that advantaged talent, character or hard work. The difference is that Rawls posits no possibility of any transcendent morality that would reward individual behaviour -- that is he is fundamentally a collectivist and anti-Lockean. That is the popular approach in academic philosophy in the modern era, but I think fundamentally wrong. I participated in an interesting graduate philosophy seminar on Rawls and Nozick back in the '70s when both books were pretty new. I wanted to like Rawls less than I did and Nozick more than I did.
You're right, but I'll go further. Very few mediocre people would even realize that they'd be at a disadvantage in such a system, because most people--and especially the mediocre--think themselves smarter and more talented than they really are, indeed smarter and more talented than most other people.
What is his standing now amongst academic philosophers? I know his Theory of Justice was all the rage when it was first published, but I hear much less of Rawls nowadays.
Exactly! I love these discussions - I could write a book on it (actually, I am).
I happen to think Rawls' point is fundamentally wrong, that even one who realized he might find himself less advantaged in real life, if setting up a system in the original position behind the veil of ignorance, might well agree to a system that advantaged talent, character or hard work.
I couldn't agree with you more! His logic may be sound but his premise is totally wrong. He built a Taj Mahal on quicksand. The compelling evidence of the falsehood of his premise is that each expecting mother and father in a way make that "behind the veil of ignorance" choice for their child. None of them know whether the child will be born smart or dumb, pretty or ugly, talented or not. If Rawls is right, all expecting parents would be marxist and then a few years after the birth of a bright, pretty child they would turn into rabid capitalists. This obviously is not happening. Where people have the opportunity to vote on the type of system that they want to live under, they never vote for a strictly eqalitarian system.
Even more to the point, there are many examples through history of people who shared Rawls view of a just society who formed communes based on equality. They all proved to be miserable failures. Larger experiments such as the Soviet Union ("from each according to his ability and to each according to their need") have met with the same fate. The reason they fail is simple - they go against human nature - WE ARE NOT MADE EQUAL. To externally impose that equality in the name of justice, is to create an even greater injustice - loss of freedom.
What all this really means is that the idea that justice means equality is foolish, and dangerous (but still very prevalent!). So if justice is not equality, what is it, exactly?