Karl
Marx and John Rawls are two of the most influential thinkers in modern
philosophy. In his Economic and
Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx asserts that moral principles can be
equated with ideologies; created to further the interests of the dominant
social class. He argues that under capitalism, the oppression of the
proletariat, or working class will lead to their eventual rebellion; sparking
the destruction of the existing socio-economic polity and rendering moral
concepts meaningless. In A Theory of
Justice, John Rawls assesses the proper role of justice and morality in
society. He does so by analyzing the underpinnings associated with social
agreements, seeing social justice as being attained by adhering to universally
applicable principles that ignore the particular happenstance of their authors.
In analyzing the works of both philosophers, one can see that the Rawslian
principles of justice seek to justify capitalism by placing it under a shroud
of altruism. Instead, the communist revolution as characterized by Marx is the
only way for capitalist societies to truly attain complete social justice and
moral equality.
I will begin by first examining the
theoretical framework from which Marx forms moral concepts. As a “historical
materialist,” Marx views concrete historical conditions as responsible for
forming one’s conception of moral ideas (Denise 193). He characterizes this
view when he states that “the production of ideas, of conceptions, of
consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and
the material intercourse of men, the language of real life” (Denise 196). Marx
considers the economic mode of production to be paramount in shaping one’s viewpoint
on philosophy; thus justifying his subsequent critique of capitalism. This view
is demonstrated when Marx states that “what [men] are… coincides with their
production, both with what they
produce and with how they produce”
(Denise 196) By extension, Marx perceives particular philosophical ways of
thinking to be mere “forms of ideology;” bound to the socio-economic context in
which they exist (Denise 193). He states that “the individuals composing the
ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think;”
arguing that the members of the dominant social class collectively determine
which moral principles will guide society in accord with their own
self-interest (Denise 197). Also, Marx criticizes social contract theorists for
characterizing the essence of humanity by the biological strictures of human
nature. Instead, Marx believes in the doctrine of generic essence, according to
which the human experience can be fully examined only by considering man in the
context of his relations with others, and not in terms of his physical nature.
This point of view is evidenced when Marx states that “the essence of man is no
abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality it is the ensemble
of [his] social relations” (Marx A 2). Marx’s conceptions of historical
materialism, morality as ideology, and the generic essence form the theoretical
underpinnings of his social and moral philosophy.
Now that we have established the
framework of Marx’s theory, let us now examine Marx’s critique of modern
society; namely, of the division of labor that arises under capitalism. Marx
believes that in such an economy, two social classes arise with inherently
opposed and irreconcilable interests; the capitalists, who own the means of
production, and the proletariat who have no other means to sustain their lives
but to sell their labor power to the capitalists. Being the only group that
“possess[es] consciousness,” Marx contends that the members of the capitalist
class are those who forge the prevailing ideals in capitalist societies (Denise
197). Thus, although the economic mode of production determines the dominant
ideology of a given society, this ideology manifests itself in other segments
of society; including politics, philosophy and science.
Marx then characterizes the members of the proletariat class
as embodying a peculiar form of “alienation;” the doctrine according to which
humans are hostile or alien in their relations with others (Denise 194). He
states that the capitalists exploit the labor of the proletariat, forcing them
effectively against their will to engage in monotonous work in order to sustain
their very existence. The proletariat are enslaved to the capitalists, and the
work that they do is unfulfilling, automated, externalized and routinized. Not
only do the proletariat produce commodities that they do not own, but they
themselves become an exchangeable commodity. This view is evidenced when Marx
states that “labor not only produces commodities; it produces itself and the
laborer as a commodity and that to the extent to which it produces commodities
in general” (Denise 198). In addition to becoming estranged from the fruits of
their labor, the proletariat become alienated from every other worker, with
whom they share no common interests; thus serving to reduce each worker to a
mere “appendage of a machine” (Denise 205). Labor becomes “compulsory;” and
eventually, each worker “feels himself an animal in his human functions”
(Denise 199). Labor serves “only to sustain life by stunting it,” and work
becomes avoided “like the plague” (Denise 200; 199). Finally, each member of
the proletariat class becomes alienated from himself; finding his life absent
of freedom, independence, enjoyment, and fulfillment. Each worker thus becomes
entirely subjugated to and dominated by the capitalists.
In addition, the greater the degree to which the labor of the
proletariat is exploited, the better off the capitalist becomes. This
relationship is codified by Marx’s conception of “surplus value,” the theory
according to which surplus, or profits derived from production is seen as a
measure of the degree to which the capitalists exploit the proletariat (Denise
195). Although surplus value is produced by the proletariat, it is nevertheless
appropriated by the capitalists. Marx states that “as capital accumulates, the
lot of the laborer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse” (Denise 205).
The interests of the two classes are opposed, in that the capitalists will
accumulate the greatest wealth by affording the proletariat the minimum wage
necessary to keep them alive and able to continue working. A contradiction
ensues in that a decreasing number of people appropriate wealth as it is
produced by an increasing number of workers. In seeking to maximize profit, the
capitalists will strive to keep wages as low as possible, and workers as
efficient as possible.
Eventually, the proletariat will come to the understanding
that the economic system in which they are subjected to is unfair, unjust and
detrimental to their mental and physical development; at which point they will
realize their need to “abolish the very condition of their existence hitherto,
namely, labor” (Denise 202). This comprehension will undoubtedly and inevitably
lead them to unite with one another in an effort to overthrow the existing
social system; promulgating an end to the division of labor in the name of
equality. Finally, being that moral conceptions develop as a tool for the
dominant class to use to their advantage, they serve no purpose in the newfound
classless society. Only after this “communist revolution” will true democracy
be established; in which social production will aim to fulfill human needs
rather than seeking to maximize profit, the generic essence will be
reestablished, and individuality will be allowed to flourish (Marx B 23).
Let us now examine John Rawls’ theory of social justice. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to
discern how to best arrange for a just society and what principles would render
a society just. As a supporter of Kantian deontology, Rawls believes that
knowledge is “a priori,” or
independent of experience; and as such, can be deemed to be “universally
applicable to experience” (Denise 146). Accordingly, Rawls concerns himself
with devising principles of justice that subsist whether or not they are
actually put into practice. By utilizing two principles of justice which will
later be elaborated upon, Rawls believes himself to conceptualize justice as a
universal and absolute doctrine “not subject to political bargaining or to the
calculus of social interests” (Denise 321). In addition, although Rawls
disagrees with the strictures of social contract theory, he nevertheless admits
that their understanding of society provides him a useful framework from which
to form universalized principles. This view is demonstrated when Rawls states
that “however mistaken the notion of the social contract may be as a history…
it does express, suitably interpreted, an essential part of the concept of
justice” (Denise 330). Thus, in accord with social contract theory, Rawls
presupposes that all individuals are “mutually self-interested,” “rational,”
“egoistic,” “free” and “equal in power” (Denise 324-25).
Rawls continues his argument by setting up additional “formal
conditions that it seems reasonable to impose on the conceptions of justice”
(Rawls 112). He first asserts that guiding social principles must be based upon
“reciprocity,” or the doctrine according to which the “mutual acknowledgement
of principles by free and equal persons” allows them to become universally
binding (Denise 327). Once these principles are established, every individual
must adhere to their precepts; and only then can fairness and justice ensue.
Secondly, those that deliberate about justice and attempt to craft universally
applicable principles must do so behind a hypothetical “veil of ignorance,”
wherein one must make sure that the decisions that they make are impartial,
unimpaired and objective (Denise 326). In order to do so, the deliberators must
theoretically devoid themselves of the subjective conditions that impair
judgment and derive at principles without their having knowledge of the
position that they will assume henceforth. In this way, the deliberators will
be unable to mold a society that accommodates their particular happenstance.
Lastly, the deliberators must seek to derive at an “overlapping consensus,” or
minimum common ground consisting of “all of the reasonable opposing religious,
philosophical, and moral doctrines likely to persist over generations and to
gain a sizeable body of interests” (Vagallis 2). This common ground is to
provide the basis for the principles of justice. Only when these various
preconditions are met can one derive at objective and universal theories of
justice.
Now that I have examined the basic conditions that must be
satisfied before a universalized theory of justice can be established, let us
now look at the actual principles of justice that Rawls derives at. Rawls’
first principle of justice, or the “equal liberty principle” states that “each
person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal
basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all” (Denise
320). In other words, Rawls is stating that for a society to be just, each
citizen within it must be granted as broad a freedom as possible and be made to
be as equal as possible. He provides
an example of the utilization of this principle; arguing that justice is
derived by adhering to the strictures of a particular legal code when the individuals
subject to it are given extensive freedom, and granted analogous rights and
privileges. For example, Rawls would likely have perceived modern China as an
unjust society; as by virtue of its totalitarian government, the freedoms of
its citizenry are severely restricted; and at the same time, its politicians
maintain unequal and extensive powers that far exceed the concessions and
privileges granted to the general Chinese populace.
Rawls second principle of justice; or the “difference principle”
is subdivided into two parts. It states that “social and economic inequalities
are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the
least advantage[d], consistent with the just savings principle, and (b)
attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality
of opportunity” (Denise 320). In the first part of this principle, Rawls
discusses certain conditions in which socio-economic inequalities are to be
deemed acceptable. He argues that socio-economic inequalities are justifiable
to the extent that they serve to the benefit of those that are the least
well-off. Thus, for example, if a particular government was to establish a
policy that decreased the tax burden on wealthy entrepreneurs, that policy would
be deemed justifiable if these individuals in turn were stimulated by the tax
decrease to craft and construct new products that would serve to the benefit of
even the poorest members of the community. The second part of Rawls’ difference
principle can be understood as requiring that all positions in the social
hierarchy be filled by fair and equal competition. Thus, Rawls would likely
perceive the acquiring of a prominent corporate position by an individual with
familial ties to the head of that organization to evidence the existence of an
unjust society.
Rawls concludes his argument by noting some additional
procedures that must be followed after the principles of justice have been
decided upon by the people’s representatives. First, the principles must be
“publicly justified,” or defended openly and honestly in front of those who are
represented by them (D’Agostino 5). They must then be ratified in the setting
of a constitutional meeting, within which deliberators must choose a particular
constitution that adheres to the principles of justice. After this constitution
is chosen, representatives must establish laws in agreement with the concepts
embodied in the just constitution; putting the principles within it into
practice.
I will now consider why is it that I believe Rawls’ theory of
justice places the socio-economic inequalities inherent to capitalism in a
positive light, and why I believe the Marxian communist revolution to be the
only true way for capitalist societies to establish social justice and moral
equality. Rawls states that practices based on inequalities are justified
insofar as they serve to the “advantage of every person engaging in it” (Denise
324). However in making this assertion, Rawls does not differentiate between
the degree to which the most advantaged will gain vis-à-vis the least
advantaged. For instance, if a particular law were to improve upon the
well-being of the best-off members of society, and only minimally improve upon
the quality of life of the worst-off members of society; that law would
nevertheless be deemed to adhere to the Rawlsian principles of justice. In
accord with this understanding, it seems as though Rawls would deem vast income
gaps between the rich and poor that develop under capitalism to be justifiable,
so long as the existing hierarchy serves to improve ever so slightly upon the
lives of the poor. Accordingly, Rawls’ theory seems to justify capitalism by
placing certain minimum conditions upon it that place it in a more humane
light. However, true social justice and moral equality cannot be derived in a
system whereby the rich get substantially richer, while the impoverished become
only slightly less poor than they started. On the other hand, Marx’s conception
of the communist revolution provides a clear path for the subjugated members of
society to fully and honestly overcome their subordinated position. Thus, the
only way for justice to take hold in capitalist societies is for the subjugated
proletariat class to unite together to overthrow the existing socio-economic
polity and establish a new state in the name of true equality. Only then will
the “original and free development of individuals [cease] to be a mere phase;”
and will true justice and moral equality will flourish (Denise 202).
In conclusion, both Karl Marx and John Rawls establish
cognizant and well-argued positions in defense of their views on morality and
justice. In Economic and Philosophic
Manuscripts of 1844, Marx makes the case that morality is a mere ideology
designed to further the objectives of the dominant class; placing his argument
into the context of the capitalist division of labor. He argues that true
social justice and equality is achieved at the point in which the members of
the subordinated social class unite together and abolish the conditions that
foster their inferior existence. In A
Theory of Justice, John Rawls establishes a universalized theory of
justice; deriving at certain principles that must be adhered to if a society is
to be truly just. It is argued that Rawls’ conception of social justice merely
serves to justify capitalism and perpetuate the socio-economic inequalities
that it propagates. Instead, the Marxist communist revolution must be undergone
in order for true social justice and moral equality to ensue. Thoughtful
consideration of the ethical doctrines of Karl Marx and John Rawls can lead one
to a greater understanding of notions of justice and morality. This recognition
can help formulate a knowledgeable and critically minded citizenry; capable of
affecting societal change for the better.
Works Cited:
D’ Agostino, Fred. "Public
Justification." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1997.
Universiteit Van Amsterdam. 4 May 2007
<http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/archives/fall1997/entries/justification-public/>.
Denise, Theodore C., Nicholas P. White, and
Sheldon P. Peterfreund. Great Traditions in Ethics. 11th ed. Vol. 1.
Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning, Inc., 2005. 192-330.
Marx, Karl. "Theses on Feuerbach."
Marxists Internet Archive. Trans. Cyril Smith. 2002. Marxists Internet
Archive. 4 May 2007
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm>. [cited in text as Marx A]
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. "The
Communist Manifesto." Comp. Rick Kuhn. 07 Oct. 2005. Australian National
University. <http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html>. [cited in text as Marx B]
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice.
Rev. ed. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999. Google Books. 4 May 2007
<http://books.google.com/books?id=b7GZr5Btp30C&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+theory+of+justice>.
Vaggalis, Ted. "John Rawls's Political
Liberalism." Academic Dialogue on Applied Ethics. 1994. Drury
College. 4 May 2007
<http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/Forum/meta/background/Rawls_pl.html>.
No comments:
Post a Comment