but we have one
we can pursue, to tempt all
others with things we are
not tempted by, to shield
what we treasure. It's our
first instinct on being ac-
costed for agreement under
intimidation, and on meet-
ing other bandits in our
path. But we also practice
this in ordinary bargain-
ing, paying cheap to sell
dear. We suppose we honour,
playing fair, praising it
as a kind of compass. Then
what happens if shielding
can't be done at the same
time; is shielding even
safe?
That coincidence defines
our American Conserva-
tism's notorious failure
in playing fair. Out on
the field we identify it,
clear as day, as a flight
from courage. The degener-
ate dependency on wealth
thus comes full circle to
deprive privilege of the
indispensable resource of
its once-dependable train-
ing. But what happens when
this deprivation blocks a
propagation of privilege's
spectacular advantages, by
stifling them? Is constant
demagoguery the price and
not the cause of courage's
sequestration? What goes
wrong with such security?
Risk the unhinged madness
of a day of playing fair:
prove the safe temptation.
Eventually everyone recognizes that they
cannot maintain their hostile attitudes
toward one another without injury to them-
selves. Thus as a compromise they settle
upon the demand of equal treatment .. So
long as the pattern of special psycholo-
gies elicited by society either supports
its arrangements or can be reasonably ac-
commodated by them, there is no need to
reconsider the choice of a conception of
justice .. the principles of justice as
fairness pass this test.
John Rawls
A Theory of Justice
Envy and Equality
Harvard University Press, 1971©
No comments:
Post a Comment