Fun ideas Flashcards
(15 cards)
What is G.A. Cohen’s critique of Rawls’ theory of justice?
Cohen criticizes Rawls for allowing the difference principle to justify inequality if it benefits the least well-off. He argues this permits self-interested behaviour to be treated as just, corrupting the egalitarian spirit of justice.
Cohen insists that justice should not accommodate selfish motivations.
What are Cohen’s ‘fact-insensitive’ principles of justice?
Cohen argues that the fundamental principles of justice should be independent of social facts, such as human motivation or economic scarcity. These principles are moral truths, not policy blueprints.
Even if people are selfish, justice might still require that they behave differently.
How does Rawls balance moral ideals with feasibility?
Rawls introduces the idea of a ‘realistic utopia’: a conception of justice that is demanding, but possible for realistic moral agents under moderate scarcity and reasonable pluralism.
Rawls’ theory incorporates motivation into the design of just institutions.
What is Public Choice Theory’s view of politics and motivation?
Public Choice Theory treats politicians, voters, and bureaucrats as self-interested actors, motivated by personal gain rather than the public good. It views political processes as markets with rent-seeking and incentive structures.
Politicians may pass legislation not for justice, but to win votes or satisfy donors.
How might Public Choice Theory align with Arendt’s critique of totalitarianism?
Hannah Arendt warns against systems that reduce human action to predictable, bureaucratic behaviour. Public Choice Theory risks depoliticising politics, turning it into economised management, void of deliberation or collective will.
It transforms public decision-making into administrative necessity, evacuating moral responsibility.
What is the ideological function of feasibility in Cohen’s view (and Marx’s)?
Cohen (and Marx) argue that what’s often called ‘human nature’ or ‘feasibility’ is shaped by historical and ideological conditions, not fixed or natural facts.
By embedding current motivation limits into theories of justice, we risk treating social products as moral limits.
Why does Cohen argue justice should not be reduced to what is possible?
Cohen believes that justice must first be defined without compromise, and then questions of strategy and feasibility follow. Confusing the two makes justice just another name for political realism.
A demanding standard can still guide action, even if not perfectly achievable in practice.
What is a ‘catallaxy’ in Hayek’s theory?
A catallaxy is Hayek’s term for the spontaneous order of the market, where outcomes emerge from countless individual transactions governed by general rules. This decentralised system cannot be judged in terms of justice.
It is as meaningless to judge the result of the market as just or unjust as it is to judge the outcome of a game of chance.
Why does Hayek reject the concept of ‘social justice’?
Hayek argues that justice applies only to deliberate actions, not to systemic outcomes. Since the market has no collective purpose, it cannot produce injustice, making redistributive justice a misapplication of moral categories.
Market outcomes are not planned, thus cannot be fairly or unfairly distributed.
How does Hayek contradict himself in supporting a limited welfare state?
Despite rejecting social justice, Hayek supports state guarantees of basic needs, which contradicts his own logic that market outcomes are morally irrelevant.
His concessions reveal that even he recognises some outcomes as politically intolerable.
How is Hayek’s ‘catallaxy’ structurally similar to Marx’s capitalism?
Both Hayek and Marx describe systems that operate beyond individual control: Marx sees capital as a social relation, while Hayek sees market order as a decentralised system governing people’s life chances.
Hayek claims neutrality, but his system works like Marx’s — without the call for change.
What is meant by Hayek’s ‘pure economism’?
Hayek reduces justice, morality, and politics to the efficiency and orderliness of market processes. He believes that as long as rules are fair, the results require no further justification.
This excludes questions of distribution, power, and need, which are central to justice.
In what sense is Hayek’s theory ideological?
By presenting the market as natural, neutral, and beyond critique, Hayek masks political decisions as apolitical facts, mirroring Marx’s critique of ideology.
Denying responsibility for outcomes while enforcing rules that generate those outcomes is a form of ideology.
What contradiction lies at the heart of Hayek’s rejection of social justice?
Hayek denies the moral relevance of economic outcomes but supports interventions to correct them, implicitly admitting that markets can fail in ways that matter.
This undermines his categorical rejection of social justice.
How can Hayek’s market be viewed through an Arendtian lens?
Hannah Arendt warned of systems that erase human agency. Hayek’s catallaxy evacuates politics, presenting a system that no one controls, yet everyone must submit to.
In denying responsibility for market harms, Hayek’s system becomes a bureaucratic totality, echoing Arendt’s fears about the dehumanising effects of impersonal rule.
