期刊文章分类查询,尽在期刊图书馆
武汉大学 湖北 武汉 430000
Introduction
Poverty is a cut and dried issue. Some poverty happens naturally, like lack of resources, and some may be caused by humans, like war. Regardless of the reasons to poverty, the situation of the poor is extremely deplorable. The gap between the rich and poor can be illustrated by the fact that the three wealthiest individuals in the world have assets that exceed those of the poorest 10 percent of the world's population. The rich own a lot, at the same time, the poor may have not sufficient food to eat. Therefore, some philosophers put forward the right to welfare for the poor to sustain their lives. They support that the poor could have the liberty not to be interfered with taking from the surplus resources of others what is required to meet their basic needs. They are called welfare libertarians. However, libertarians insist that this kind of liberty for the poor will hurt the liberty of the rich. The rich have the liberty not to be interfered with using their surplus resources to satisfy their luxury needs. It would be nice of the rich to share their surplus, but they should not be required to sacrifice their liberty to meet the basic needs of the poor. Evidently, these two liberties conflict.
These two liberties are my main focus here. In this article, I will first probe into the problem that whether luck is deserved or not. Secondly, I will base on the conception of liberty and care about why the basic liberty must be divided into the liberty of the poor and the liberty of the rich. Thirdly, I will focus on the representatives of these two conflicting liberties, and then come to a conclusion that these two liberties do not really conflict and welfare liberal perspective is more fundamental.
Luck and Due
The gap between the rich and the poor indeed exists. And how can this gap form? Namely, why there are rich people or poor people? Actually, the born of everyone is occasional. We cannot know how much wealth we will own, how brilliant our abilities are, and even who will be our parents before. That is to say, the existence of everyone is full of luck and luck can happen by random chance, and we are not aware of it. So, here comes a Question-Is luck the due?
I myself endorse what Ronald Dworkin insists in his Sovereign Virtue. Ronald Dworkin considers luck prudently. He divides the luck into two kinds. One is option luck, and one is brute luck. He has taken examples to explain these two different luck. If the stock I bought on the exchange rose, then my option luck is good. If I am hit by a falling meteor and I obviously can't predict its trajectory, my luck is bad native luck. Luck can be good or not, and the difference between brute luck and option luck is whether it is controlled or chosen by your will. Hit by a falling meteor is accidental, and you will never know when it will fall or whether you will be hit by it. Just like you will never know when you will get born and whether be with a golden key. That is brute luck. While for option luck, you can give the choice and take control of it. Just like the stoke, whether to buy or not, is decided by yourself, because you have predicted the risk and are willing to take responsibility.
In short, I contend that the option luck can be optional and we should take responsible for that, and brute luck is uncontrollable and we could not take responsible for that. That is option luck is due but brute luck is not. If we always contend equality while regardless of the outcome of different luck, how can we really achieve equality and liberty?
The liberty of the rich and the liberty of the poor
Broadly speaking, liberty is the ability to do as one pleases. It is quite different from the concept of freedom, which is having an ability to act or change without constraint. Generally, we can say that a person can have the freedom to murder but have no liberty to murder. Liberty seems to have more constraints but not all like this. Isaiah Berlin once divided liberty into negative liberty and positive liberty in his famous essay first published 1958. Negative liberty seems to be a mere absence of something, whereas positive liberty seems to require presence of something. Comparing with this two liberty, the negative one seems more free because what it relies are much less than the positive one. Take the right to life as an example. The positive interpretation of the right to life is to get something sustain the life, while the negative interpretation of the right to life is not to be interfered to sustain the life. The more ones rely; the less liberty they will own.
From the negative perspective of the liberty, in order to protect the right to life of the poor, the rich have the liberty not to be interfered with using their resources to satisfy their luxury needs, and the poor should have the liberty not to be interfered with taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs. Here is why there are the liberty of the rich and liberty of the poor. Actually, they are in conflict. If the liberty of the rich has been protected absolutely, the poor will get no surplus to satisfy their basic needs. If the liberty of the poor has been protected completely, the liberty of the rich will not be totally realized. Libertarians reject the liberty of the poor, while welfare liberals support the liberty of the poor.
Welfare liberals support the liberty of the poor, that is, the poor have the right to welfare. The right to welfare is only getting the surplus from the rich and doing no harm to their basic needs through some effective way. Libertarians insist that whether to do the help rely on the wills of the rich but not the needs of the poor. It could be very nice of the rich to share their surplus resources with the poor, but it could not be required to share out of the justice. According to their view, justice is protecting the liberty, and welfare just goes against justice. Welfare is only required by charity while not by justice. Thus, libertarians also reject the right to welfare.
However, I have talked above that the gap between the rich and the poor are influenced by luck to some extent. Although not all the rich people are rich due to the luck, but luck is nowhere to been seen from the birth. Because of the brute luck, someone is born to be poor in some country where there are in need of resources to sustain their lives. If they have no right to welfare, how can they survive? Relying on the kindness of the rich? If the poor are far away from the rich, and the rich cannot know the sufferings of the poor, how can they be nice to share their surplus? If the rich are just nice to their compatriots regardless of the strangers in other countries, how can the strangers sustain their lives?
Therefore, there is only the liberty of the rich but no liberty of the poor in libertarianism. And the substance of the right of welfare is only to protect the right to life of the poor. Relying on people’s kindness and charity, the life of the poor cannot be guaranteed seriously. Instead of saying that the liberty of the rich and the liberty of the poor conflict, the liberty of the rich and the life of the poor conflict. Libertarians and welfare liberals take different primary values as most important. Libertarians value liberty while welfare liberals value equality. I think much of equality. Next, we will see how these two values conflict.
Welfare Liberalism and libertarianism
John Hospers believes that libertarianism is “a philosophy of personal liberty-the liberty of each person to live according to his own choices, provided that he does not attempt to coerce others and thus prevent them from living according to their choices.” Libertarianism values liberty foremost, but without taking equality as base, the liberty is not like so attractive. Theoretically, each person could live according to his own choices under ideal conditions. However, not everyone could make his choices in reality, and they just have no choice (By the way, we cannot say “have no choice” is a kind of choice here). If the person unfortunately is born in a poor family where he cannot sustain his life, how can he make the choice as average one, let alone other requirements that libertarians claim (such as a right to life; a right to freedom of speech, press, and assembly; and a right to property). So, I think if the equality cannot be guaranteed, the liberty cannot be realized completely. For instance, libertarians reject the right to welfare because they believe it hurts the liberty of the rich once accepting it. However, if they reject the right to welfare indeed, the right to life of the poor will not be realized, and it still hurts the requirements of the liberty. Thus, I contend that equality is the premise of the liberty, and the right to welfare is the requirement of the equality.
I consider John Rawls’s “veil of ignorance” can provide a perfect interpretation. under this veil, “no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like" . Such a thought experiment which helps us to make a relatively fare distribution. Just like distributing a cake, it is much easier to make the cake distributed fairly if the cutter gets the last one, because the last one who gets the cake has more possibility to get the smallest one. If the cutter does not want to get the smallest one, he must cut the cake as same as possible. Similarly, in order to make sure that the principle of justice can meet one’s need, the principle should be made as fair as possible. Under this circumstance, no one could refuse what welfare liberals claim that the right to welfare is acceptable. Everyone could be the vulnerable one and how can he protect his basic interests if he as one? He has no reason to refuse the right to welfare. The rich one may refuse it, but under the veil of ignorance, you will not know whether you will be a rich one or not. If you just are the rich one, provide your surplus to help others will not hurt your basic needs. However, if you are the vulnerable, without the right to welfare, you will be in an awkward situation and even facing death. Therefore, out of the consideration of equality, the right of welfare is necessary.
Nowadays, many libertarians protect the liberty of the rich, because there have been the rich already and it is most due to the luck. However, before the luck comes, or just under the “veil of ignorance”, there have no difference between rich and poor and everyone is equal. Now that at first there are no rich and poor ones, and there will be no real liberty of the rich and of the poor. In order to care about the interests of the most vulnerable groups, the fairest principle of justice may be produced and no one will refuse the right to welfare.
Conclusion
In this article, I start with the situation of the poor, and probe into the reasons why there are rich and poor. Largely, it is due to the brute luck. The option luck is chosen by oneself and he will take the responsibilities for himself. But brute luck is totally occasional and no one can take control of it. Then, I further analyzed the liberty of the rich and the liberty of the poor. Apparently, they are in conflicts. However, the substance is the rights to property of the rich and the rights to life of the poor clash while not the liberties. At last, I have introduced John Rawls’s “veil of ignorance” to explain why the right to welfare is reasonable. Under the veil of ignorance, the equality is more fundamental than liberty, and I stand for the views of welfare liberals.
参考文献：
[1]See Ronald Dworkin,Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality,Harvard University Press,2000,p.73.
[2]The Merriam-Webster Dictionary,2005,Mirriam-Webster,Inc,ISBN 978-0-87779-636-7.
[3]‘Two Concepts of Liberty’was Berlin's inaugural lecture as Chichele Professor of Political and Social Theory at Oxford University.Second and third editions were published in 1969 and 2002 respectively. For an account of the historical and philosophical background of this essay,see Ricciardi (2007).
[4]John Hospers,Libertarianism (Los Angeles: Nash,1971).5.
[5]Rawls,John (1999).A Theory of Justice.Harvard University Press.p.118.
论文作者:袁梦婷
论文发表刊物:《成功》2019年第3期
论文发表时间:2019/6/24
标签：期刊论文; 湖北论文; 尽在论文; 武汉论文; 参考文献论文; 武汉大学论文; 文章分类论文; 《成功》2019年第3期论文;