Abstract
Within ethics, distributive justice constitutes a central and controversial topic. Despite the rise of positive approaches to studying existing distributive preferences in society (see Konow, 2003), the question how different normative positions are justified is still fundamentally important for moral philosophers.1 With John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice (1971), a revival of normative theories of justice — including distributional aspects (see Nozick, 1974; Harsanyi, 1975) — has been observed. Even though much of the debate took place on an abstract-theoretical level, one must not overlook the crucial role of assumptions about the empirical world in this debate. At the end of the day, different normative conclusions are drawn partly because of the pre-election of different assumptions on an empirical level. An instructive example about the influence of positive assumption on normative theory is the debate between John Rawls (1971; 2001) and John Harsanyi (1953; 1955; 1975). Both used an Original Position to develop their normative conclusion, but due to different positive models of human decision making, the former derived his famous difference principle implying substantial redistribution, while the latter arrived at the utilitarian norm of maximizing average income.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bourdieu, P. and J.-C. Passeron (1964/1971) ‘Die Illusion der Chancengleichheit. Untersuchungen zur Soziologie des Bildungswesens am Beispiel Frankreichs’, (Stuttgart: Klett).
Buchanan, A. and D. Mathieu (1986) ‘Chapter 2: Philosophy and Justice’, in R. L. Cohan (ed.) Justice: Views from the Social Sciences (New York: Plenum Press).
Croson, R. and S. Gächter (2010) ‘The Science of Experimental Economics’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 73, pp. 122–131.
Dworkin, R. (1981a) ‘Equality of Opportunity. Part 1: Equality of Welfare’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10, 3, pp. 185–246.
Dworkin, R. (1981b) ‘Equality of Opportunity. Part 2: Equality of Resources’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10, 4, pp. 283–345.
Frohlich, N. and J. A. Oppenheimer (1990) ‘Choosing Justice in Experimental Democracies with Production’, American Political Science Review, 84, 2, pp. 461–477.
Frohlich, N. and J. A. Oppenheimer (1992) Choosing Justice: An Experimental Approach to Ethical Theory (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Grusky, D. B. and S. M. R. Kanbur (2006) Poverty and Inequality (Stanford: Stanford UP).
Harsanyi, J. (1953) ‘Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-taking’, Journal of Political Economy, 61, pp. 434–435.
Harsanyi, J. (1955) ‘Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility’, Journal of Political Economy, 63, pp. 309–321.
Harsanyi, J. (1975) ‘Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls’s Theory’, American Political Science Review, 69, pp. 594–606.
Johnson, D. T. (1996) Poverty, Inequality and Social Welfare in Australia (Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag).
Kahneman, D., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (1982) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge: Cambridge UP).
Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1979) ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions under Risk’, Econometrica, 47, 2, pp. 263–291.
Kant, I. (1788/2005) Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (Stuttgart: Reclam).
Kluegel, J. R., D. S. Mason, and B. Wegener (1995) Social Justice and Political Change: Public Opinion in Capitalist and Post-Communist States (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
Konow, J. (2003) ‘Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories’, Journal of Economic Literature, 41, pp. 1188–1239.
Lamont, J. and C. Favor (2013) ‘Distributive Justice’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/, date accessed January 13, 2014.
Liebig, S., H. Lengfeld, and S. Mau (2004) Verteilungsprobleme und Gerechtigkeit in modernen Gesellschaften (Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag).
Marshall, T. H. (1949/1963) ‘Citizenship and Social Class’, in T. H. Marshall (ed.) Sociology at the Crossroads and Other Essays (London: Heinmann).
Mason, D. S., J. R. Kluegel, and L. A. Khakhulina (2000) Marketing Democracy. Changing Opinion About Inequality and Politics in East Central Europe (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers).
Nozick, R. (1974) Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP).
Rawls, J. (1993) Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia UP).
Rawls, J. (2001) Justice as Fairness. A Restatement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP).
Roemer, J. (1996) Theories of Distributive Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP).
Roemer, J. (1998) Equality of Opportunity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP).
Rousseau, J.-J. (1762/2010) Du Contract Social. Vom Gesellschaftsvertrag (Stuttgart: Reclam).
Shavit, Y. (2007) Stratification in Higher Education. A Comparative Study (Stanford: Stanford UP).
Smith, A. (1759/1976) The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Empire Books).
Wolf, S. (2010) ‘An Intergenerational Social Contract for Common Resource Usage: A Reality-Check for Harsanyi and Rawls’, in Constitutional Economics Network Papers, 02–2010, pp. 1–8.
Wolf, S. and A. Lenger (2013) ‘Choosing Inequality: An Experimental Analysis of the Impact of Social Immobility on the Democratic Election of Distribution Rules’, in Constitutional Economics Network Papers, 03–2013. http://www.wipo.uni-freiburg.de/dateien/research/cen-papers/CENpaper2013_02
Wolf, S. and A. Lenger (2014) Appendices A-C for ‘Utilitarianism, the Difference Principle, or Else? An Experimental Analysis of the Impact of Social Immobility on the Democratic Election of Distributive Rules’ http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/9379/.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Stephan Wolf and Alexander Lenger
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wolf, S., Lenger, A. (2014). Utilitarianism, the Difference Principle, or Else? An Experimental Analysis of the Impact of Social Immobility on the Democratic Election of Distributive Rules. In: Luetge, C., Rusch, H., Uhl, M. (eds) Experimental Ethics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137409805_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137409805_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-48879-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-40980-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)