Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Query for Tim Sevener, part 2
Message-ID: <3532@alice.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 17:25:41 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3532
Posted: Fri Apr  5 17:25:41 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Apr-85 03:23:48 EST
References: <576@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 32

> Glad you asked that question!  Basically I agree with John Rawles'
> use of the social contract positions of John Locke (who was the primary
> influence on our own esteemed Thomas Jefferson) in "A Theory of
> Justice".  Rawles' argues that Justice is that society or institutional
> arrangement all would agree to if they do not know what their own
> position will be in that system.  While this position promotes the
> basic principle of equality it also allows inequality *if such
> inequality makes everyone better off*.  Further it also promotes
> equality of opportunity-if I don't know what my own position may be
> besides wanting equal positions in themselves I am also likely to
> want to have a very good chance to attain various positions.

There seems to be a skipped step in this reasoning.

You say that a just society is one in which anyone would agree
to participate even without knowing in advance what one's position
would be in that society.

You then conclude from this that such a society "promotes the basic
principle of equality."

Even if I accept your premise, I do not see how this conclusion follows.
It only follows if you make a large, unstated, and probably false
assumption that people have no control over their own destinies
and that they are incapable of creating anything of value.
If I do not make this assumption, then the society I would most
like to see would be based on the principle that I get to keep
what I create.  As far as I can tell, this cannot coexist with
the "basic principle of equality."

Since you obviously think differently, could you please spell out
your reasoning in more detail so I can try to follow it?