The-Morality-of-Capitalism-PDF

Egalitarianism: “Fair” DistributionIf we turn to egalitarianism, we find that we arrive at the sameprinciple by a different logical route. The ethical framework ofthe egalitarian is defined by the concept of justice rather thanrights. If we look at society as a whole, we see that income, wealth,and power are distributed in a certain way among individualsand groups. The basic question is: is the existing distributionfair? If not, then it must be corrected by government programsof redistribution. A pure market economy, of course, does notproduce equality among individuals. But few egalitarians haveclaimed that strict equality of outcome is required by justice. Themost common position is that there is a presumption in favor ofequal outcomes, and that any departure from equality must bejustified by its benefits to society as a whole. Thus, the Englishwriter R. H. Tawney wrote that “inequality of circumstance isregarded as reasonable, in so far as it is a necessary condition ofsecuring the services which the community requires.” John Rawls’sfamous “Difference Principle”—that inequalities are permittedas long as they serve the interests of the least advantaged personsin society—is only the most recent example of this approach.In other words, egalitarians recognize that strict leveling wouldhave a disastrous effect on production. They admit that noteveryone contributes equally to the wealth of a society. To someextent, therefore, people must be rewarded in accordance withtheir productive ability, as an incentive to put forth their bestefforts. But any such differences must be limited to those whichare necessary for the public good.What is the philosophical basis of this principle? Egalitariansoften argue that it follows logically from the basic principle ofjustice: that people are to be treated differently only if they differin some morally relevant way. If we are going to apply thisfundamental principle to the distribution of income, however,we must first assume that society literally engages in an act ofdistributing income. This assumption is plainly false. In a marketeconomy, incomes are determined by the choices of millions ofindividuals—consumers, investors, entrepreneurs, and workers.These choices are coordinated by the laws of supply and demand,75