Skip to main content

Thomas and Sen

Image result for John Rawls

In the previous two posts, I've given brief blurbs to each of two distinguished contemporaries in the world of social and political philosophy, Amartya Sen and Alan Thomas.

Today I'd like to bring their views in contact with one another.

The most obvious point to make is that Thomas identifies himself as, if not a 'Rawlsian' exactly, at least a member of the family. Sen, on the other hand, describes his own views in anti-Rawlsian terms.

John Rawls is generally credited with reviving political philosophy in the Anglophonic philosophic world after a long period of neglect. Some say he did more, that he revived substantive moral inquiry itself in that world, after a period in which it had disappeared into meta-ethics. So it seems fitting that nearly half a century later, once should describe two major figures by where they stand vis-a-vis Rawls. Thus, I'm illustrating this post with his visage.

Rawls' work mixes teleological and deontological elements. Of the two principles of justice that Rawls says the contractors behind the veil of ignorance will adopt, the first has a blatantly deontological sound to it, and must be obeyed before one even arrives at applications of the second (it is "lexically prior" as Rawls says). The second has a more teleological sound, but it it driven by a means-oriented desire to protect the least well off.

Sen is not a utilitarian, but he is a teleologist of a sort, and Rawlsian deontology is part of Sen's complaint.

Thomas is in accord with Rawls on this matter of deontology.

There are other differences, too. Thomas worries about "path dependence." A society determined to move forward, so that its people will live in better circumstances next year than they lived in last year, may find itself locked into a path where the way forward is suboptimal. There may be circumstances in which things will have to get worse before they can get better, because a society's dependence on a sub-optimal path has to be broken.

That path dependence concern is key to what Thomas means by "predistribution." Welfare liberalism leads a society to see redistribution as the way forward.  But if predistribution is a better way to address issues of institutional inequality and deprivation, then the welfarist structures may need to be undone to get there. The process will make some people worse off, at least for some period of time of indeterminate length.

That sounds like the sort of thing that gives "social engineering" a bad name, but one knows in general what he means.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…