Where the Action Is by Cohen - Book Report/Review Example

Review and Critique of G.A. Cohen, “Where the Action is.” Review and critique of G.A. Cohen, “Where the Action Is.” Summary Cohen seeks to defend the claim that principles of distributive justice apply to peoples legally unconstrained choices. The principles relate to the choices that individuals make within the legal structures. The feminist critique explains how the standard liberal theory of justice unjustifiably ignores the unjust power relations within families and the unjust division of labor. It seeks to uphold the Rawlsian view that principles of justice apply only to what Rawls refers to as the “basic structure” of society. It is noted that Rawls wavers on the issue of whether or not the family belongs to the basic structure and if these principles of justice apply to it. He also claims that Susan Okin’s theory is quite similar to that of Rawls and says further that she is unaware of the wider consequences of Rawl’s view of justice in general. He goes further to object his criticism of Rawls, saying that a different principle is one that applies only to social institutions and, therefore, not one that applies to choices that people make within such institutions. Rawls goes further to claim that inequalities are just if they are crucial to make the worst-off individuals in society better off than they otherwise would be. Cohen goes further to say that he disagrees with Rawls on which inequalities pass the test for justifying inequality and how much inequality passes the test. In his view, there is hardly any serious inequality that satisfies the requirement set by the different principle. He claims that it is often thought that the difference principle licenses an argument for inequality that centers on the device of material incentives. He highlights the idea that talented individuals would produce more than they otherwise would if their payments were higher than their ordinary wages. Additionally, some of the extra, which they would then produce can be recruited on behalf of the worst off. He claims that they are so positioned, and do not command a high salary, and can vary their productivity according to exactly how high it is. As far as the incentives argument is concerned, their happy position could be due to circumstances that are entirely accidental, relative to whatever kind of natural or social induced endowment they possess. The particular criticism of the incentives argument is whether or not well-placed people merit the contestable designation. His use of the argument’s terms shows the strength of his critique. It is appropriate to make such assumptions since the Rawlsian difference principle is lexically secondary to his principle that fair equality of opportunity has been enforced with respect to the attainment of desired positions. He believes that the incentives argument for inequality represents a distorted application of the difference principle. Either the relative talented individuals themselves affirm the difference principle or they do not. They either believe that inequalities are unjust if they are not essential to make the badly off better off. The difference principle might be appealed to in justification of a government’s acceptance, or support for inequality in a society in which the talented themselves do not accept in. He notes that Rawls says that the members affirm and uphold the correct principles of justice. Rawls claims that talented people apply the principles of justice in their daily life and achieve a sense of justice from doing so. He points that they require more pay than the untalented, for the work that demand special talent, but which is not especially unpleasant. The talented may be asked whether the extra that they get is necessary to enhance the position of the worse off. He goes on to claim that the high rewards are necessary to enhance the position of the worse off since they make those rewards basic. Those rewards are necessary because the difference principle does not appropriately inform the choices of the talented individuals. He concludes that the justice of a society is not necessarily a function of its legislative structure, but legal imperative rules. A just society within the terms of the difference principle requires an ethos of justice, as well as coercive rules that inform individual choices. In the absence of such an ethos, inequalities will not necessary enhance the condition of the worse off. The required ethos promotes a distribution more than just what the rules of the economic game can secure. The required ethos must guide choice within the rules and not merely direct agents to obey them. Rawls asserts that individuals’ choices can themselves be asserted as just or unjust from many points of view. He argues that the choices with respect to work and remuneration that talented people make can be submitted for judgment at the bar of the difference principle. The difference principle is the “principle of justice for institutions.” He goes further to argue that the Rawlsian demands that citizens in a just society uphold the principles that make it just, by virtue of the stipulated scope of the difference principle. He explains the difference between him and Rawls, his fundamental concern is neither the basic structure of society nor people’s individual choices. He points out that his concern is the distributive justice in the distribution of benefits and burdens to individuals. He believes that there is injustice in distribution where the inequality of goods reflects differences on the arduousness of different people’s labors, or different preferences and choices with respect to income and labor. Such differences in operation are a function of the structure and people’s choices within it. Rawls is more concerned with distributive justice. This obtains the just distribution of benefits and burdens in society. In his words, a just society is one where its citizens act and affirm upon the correct principles of justice. He argues that an ethos informing choice within just rules is necessary for a society that is committed to the different principle. He goes on to question why people have to act from the principles of justice and apply them as their circumstance require. Cohen points out Rawls’s statement that the primary subject of justice is a set of institutions, and the principles of justice do not judge the actions of individuals within institutions whose rules they observe. He argues that if justice relates to structure alone, then it must be relative. He adds that people from a just society act with a sense of justice from principles of justice in their daily lives. They strive to apply these principles to their choices. He also states that these ideals of dignity, fraternity and full realization of people’s moral natures can be no longer said to be delivered by Rawlsian justice. Critique Aristotle did not agree with Pluto’s theory concerning an ideal government. He believed that the government was to work for the good of all its citizens through realistic means. Aristotle claimed that individuals cannot function without participating in the democratic exercise of choosing who will lead them. Aristotle had his views on distributive justice. He believed that justice is the idea that wealth and honors should be distributed according to merit. He never bothered about the fact that the rich have much more opportunities for achieving merit, and that slaves and noncitizens had very little or no chance of attaining merit. Aristotle was aware of the dangers of power which is abused. He also recommended that written laws should be adopted. This was because he said that the written law had more authority than the ruling class. He, however, endorsed such ideas as slavery. He believed that everybody needs to rule and that those who lack the rationality to rule themselves need to be ruled by others. Aristotle also gave his opinion about individual liberty and the demand for the state. Aristotle believed that the community had more priority than the state. Cohen’s argument is based on the fact that justice is not necessarily important. This goes on to show us that he believes that some wrongs in society could be overlooked, considering issues like status in society or wealth. He also claimed to favor a system where there is an equal distribution of benefits and burdens in society. Logically speaking, this would be quite a tough act to follow considering that most people had to work hard in order to get where they are. That would mean that the financially stable people would have to bear the same economic burdens as those who are struggling. It would be said that some of his theories are somehow irrational or inapplicable to modern society. Reference Cohen, G. A. (1997). Where the action is: on the site of distributive justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 26(1). Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0048-3915%28199724%2926%3A1%3C3%3AWTAIOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0 Read More