74 MACRO AND MICRO - Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick - quandoilpiccoloètroppopiccolo? troppocomodosenzacontroesempi redistribuzionedeicorpi trapiantodegliocchi dilemmadirawls
Rawls’ insistence that the principles he formulates are to be applied only to the fundamental macrostructure of the whole society, and that no micro counterexample to them will be admissible.Read more at location 4035
a wide gamut of counterexamples to it can be produced that focus on small situationsRead more at location 4037
But Rawls does not claim the difference principle is to apply to every situation; only to the basic structure of the society. How are we to decide if it applies to that?Read more at location 4038
Since we may have only weak confidence in our intuitions and judgments about the justice of the whole structure of society, we may attempt to aid our judgment by focusing on microsituations that we do have a firm grasp of.Read more at location 4039
thought experiments in which we try out principles in hypothetical micro-situations.Read more at location 4041
we may think that since correct principles of justice are universally applicable,Read more at location 4043
Since Plato, at any rate, that has been our tradition; principles may be tried out in the large and in the small.Read more at location 4044
Perhaps one thinks of the possibility that a whole social structure is just, even though none of its parts is, because the injustice in each part somehow balances out or counteracts another one, and the total injustice ends up being balanced out or nullified.Read more at location 4048
surely a regular, ordinary, everyday part, possessing no very unusual features, should turn out to be just when it satisfies the fundamental principles of justice;Read more at location 4051
For complex wholes are not easily scanned; we cannot easily keep track of everything that is relevant.Read more at location 4056
principles, though individually compelling (witness their application to a wide range of particular microcases), may yield surprising results when combined together.Read more at location 4057
The only reason I have thought of for discounting microtests of the fundamental principles is that microsituations have particular entitlements built into them.Read more at location 4067
it assumes there is some level so deep that no entitlements operate that far down.Read more at location 4072
May all entitlements be relegated to relatively superficial levels? For example, people’s entitlements to the parts of their own bodies? An application of the principle of maximizing the position of those worst off might well involve forceable redistribution of bodily parts (“You’ve been sighted for all these years; now one—or even both—of your eyes is to be transplanted to others”),Read more at location 4073
or killing some people early to use their bodies in order to provide material necessary to save the lives of those who otherwise would die young.Read more at location 4075
we focus on those entitlements and rights that most clearly are not socially or institutionally based.Read more at location 4079
On what grounds are such cases, whose detailed specifications I leave to the ghoulish reader, ruled inadmissible?Read more at location 4080
Rawls’ argument would contain metastatements, statements about principles: such as, any principles agreed to by persons in a certain situation are correct. Combined with an argument showing that persons in that situation would agree to principles P, one can deduce that P is correct, and then deduce that P.Read more at location 4086
Each theory specifies starting points and processes of transformation, and each accepts whatever comes out. According to each theory, whatever comes out is to be accepted because of its pedigree, its history.Read more at location 4093
Entitlement theory specifies a process for generating sets of holdings. The three principles of justice (in acquisition, transfer, and rectification) that underlie this process,Read more at location 4097
Rawls’ theory arrives at a process P for generating principles of justice. This process P involves people in the original position agreeing to principles of justice behind a veil of ignorance.Read more at location 4100
But this process P for generating principles of justice cannot, we already have argued, itself generate process principles as the fundamental principles of justice. P must generate end-state or end-result principles.Read more at location 4103
The structure of Rawls’ theory thus presents a dilemma. If processes are so great, Rawls’ theory is defective because it is incapable of yielding process principles of justice. If processes are not so great, then insufficient support has been provided for the principles yielded by Rawls’ process P for arriving at principles.Read more at location 4110
Note: IL DILEMMA DI RAWLS: 1 SE ACCETTIAMO IL SUO ESPERIMENTO NN ARRIVIAMO ALKE SUE CONCLUSIONI. SE NN LO ACCETTIAMO LE SUE CONCLUSIONI SONO INVALIDE. Edit
If processes are good enough to found a theory upon, they are good enough to be the possible result of the theory. One can’t have it both ways.Read more at location 4116
should not leave the subject of the properties of the difference principle without mentioning the interesting but I think mistaken speculation of Thomas Scanlon that “there is no plausible principle which is distinct from the Difference Principle and intermediate between it and strict equality.”Read more at location 4135
Note: CRITICA A SCANLON
