Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-5dd2w Total loading time: 0.312 Render date: 2022-05-25T04:24:05.942Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

The Political Philosophy of Biological Endowments: Some Considerations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2009

Alexander Rosenberg
Affiliation:
Philosophy, University of California, Riverside

Extract

Is a government required or permitted to redistribute the gains and losses that differences in biological endowments generate? In particular, does the fact that individuals possess different biological endowments lead to unfair advantages within a market economy? These are questions on which some people are apt to have strong intuitions and ready arguments. Egalitarians may say yes and argue that as unearned, undeserved advantages and disadvantages, biological endowments are never fair, and that the market simply exacerbates these inequities. Libertarians may say no, holding that the possession of such endowments deprives no one of an entitlement and that any system but a market would deprive agents of the rights to their endowments. Biological endowments may well lead to advantages or disadvantages on their view, but not to unfair ones.

I do not have strong intuitions about answers to these questions, in part because I believe that they are questions of great difficulty. To begin, alternative answers rest on substantial assumptions in moral philosophy that seem insufficiently grounded. Moreover, the questions involve several problematical assumptions about the nature of biological endowments. Finally, I find the questions to be academic, in the pejorative sense of this term. For aside from a number of highly debilitating endowments, the overall moral significance of differences between people seems so small, so I interdependent and so hard to measure, that these differences really will 1 not enter into practical redistributive calculations, even if it is theoretically i permissible that they do so.

Before turning to a detailed discussion of biological endowments and their moral significance, I sketch my doubts about the fundamental moral theories that dictate either the impermissibility or the obligation to compensate for different biological endowments.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), pp. 7274.Google Scholar

2 Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1974), pp. 224227.Google Scholar

3 Dworkin, Ronald, “What is Equality? Part 1: Equality of Welfare,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 10 (Summer 1981), pp. 185246Google Scholar, and “What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources,” ibid. (Fall 1981), pp. 283–345.

4 Nozick, Anarchy, p. 233.

5 See ibid., pp. 213–227.

6 For a discussion of this matter, see Sen, Amartya, “The Moral Standing of the Market,” Social Philosophy & Policy, vol. 2 (Spring 1985), pp. 119CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Allan Gibbard, “What's Morally Special About Free Exchange?” ibid., pp. 20–28.

7 As noted below in Section V, Dworkin for one would reject this line of reasoning. See Dworkin, “Equality of Resources,” pp. 308–310.

8 For a discussion of this point see Sober, E., “Evolution, Population Thinking, and Essentialism,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 47 (1980), pp. 350383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Dworkin, “Equality of Resources,” p. 332.

10 See ibid.

11 ibid., p. 284.

12 See Varian, Hal, “Dworkin on Equality of Resources,” Economics and Philosophy, vol. 1 (1985), pp. 110127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Dworkin, “Equality of Resources,” p. 287 n. 2.

14 ibid., p. 316.

15 ibid., p. 302.

16 ibid., p. 303.

17 ibid., p. 304.

18 Nozick, Anarchy, p. 214. He makes this same point eloquently for quite a different purpose.

19 Dworkin, “Equality of Resources,” p. 311.

20 ibid., p. 313.

21 ibid.

22 ibid., p. 314.

23 ibid., pp. 316–317.

24 Nozick, Anarchy, p. 169.

25 Dworkin, “Equality of Resources,” p. 330.

26 ibid., pp. 333–334.

27 Roemer, John, “Equality of Talent,” Economics and Philosophy, vol. 1 (1985), pp. 151188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Rawls, Theory of Justice, pp. 72–74.

29 Dworkin, “Equality of Resources,” p. 309.

30 ibid., p. 310.

3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Political Philosophy of Biological Endowments: Some Considerations*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Political Philosophy of Biological Endowments: Some Considerations*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Political Philosophy of Biological Endowments: Some Considerations*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *