By Alexandra Cooper, Class of 2017

Somewhere in the depths of my closet, I have a box filled with medals and trophies. If an alien or post apocalyptic species were to inspect the contents, they would likely believe that I was some athletic prodigy. However, the reality is that I participated in a lower school soccer league where there were more kids wearing Juicy Couture tracksuits than there were wearing cleats or shin guards. The discrepancy between the future humans’ interpretation and the reality is not to suggest that our earth dwelling successors are primitive or have a totally foreign reward system. Rather, it suggests that we, current, pre-apocalyptic humans are the ones with a warped reward system.

The kids with some potential—who maybe did wear cleats and shinguards—got trophies. The kids that worked hard got trophies; and so did the kids that cried, the kids that rarely showed up, and the kids that hardly even knew the rules of the game. In other words, every player—regardless of effort, athletic prowess, attendance, or team spirit—was rewarded. When the coaches based their teaching philosophy on the belief that “everyone is a winner”, I approached the team with the same attitude. Why should I try extra hard when I would receive a trophy regardless? Of course there are other factors that could and should motivate me in the same way that sparingly distributed trophies may have, but my six year old self did not acknowledge those factors. It is much easier to be motivated by the prospect of some tangible prize than it is to be motivated by the prospect of a sensation.

Without any sense of competition, the trophies I “won” were essentially meaningless. How could I win something in an environment void of any and all competition? The answer is that I could not. By definition, in order to win someone else needs to lose. One’s pride can only exist if someone else’s does not. My experience can attest to that: there was nothing exciting or rewarding about getting a trophy when everyone else did too. Yes, the pursuit of happiness and pride is far more admirable than the superficial pursuit of a trophy. However, those--like the coaches--who believe everyone should receive a trophy are the truly superficial ones. Giving each child a trophy in order to perpetuate some delusion that everyone is equal is a worse dead than competing for a trophy.

Perhaps in his past life John Rawls was a girls soccer coach. His emphasis on fair distribution, his disregard of a group’s range of abilities, and his eagerness to craft a sense of equality all make him perfect for the job. I imagine that living in a Rawls-ian utopia would fill me with the same lackluster feelings as my soccer experience. If I consider the latter to be a microcosm of the former, then I can see that--unlike as Rawls suggests--happiness and pride are not always enough to motivate people. Perhaps I am too shallow to truly embrace such a non-materialistic lifestyle however, I do not object to the Rawls-ian utopia exclusively on superficial grounds. I would feel underwhelmed, or unsatisfied living in such an environment not because my happiness relies on a trophy or wealth, but because I believe that internal or personal satisfaction--while of paramount importance--should not eclipse external acknowledgements of success. If someone is more deserving of success than another, then the former individual should receive special acknowledgement. The superior individual should not be penalized (i.e not recognized) for the sake of the inferior individual’s equanimity. However, because of Rawls’s denunciation of the “wildcards” and his rejection of monetary gain this person would be left to him or herself to celebrate. Even this solitary celebration would be hard given that the very qualities that allow for success--i.e the “wildcard” qualities--are hard to acknowledge since they are considered to be negligible.

Although there are certainly unfair consequences associated with significant deviations from economic equality, I believe that it is ultimately more unfair to tamper with the natural and just process that results in such economic disparity. While well intentioned, giving everyone a trophy or equal wealth does not yield a more just system. Rather, it gives everyone something that they do not deserve by disassociating people from their actions. What you receive has nothing to do with you and everything to do with preserving equality. I ultimately believe that significant deviations from economic equality are morally justifiable, but perhaps not morally ideal.

Milton Friedman, an American economist, famously noted the distinction between freedom and equality when he said “a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” What I find particularly poignant about this quote is Friedman’s ability to address the flaws of equality without dismissing it as an undesired quality. Rawls’s economic philosophies, while well intentioned, embody the first condition of Friedman’s quote. That is, they try to prioritize equality at the cost of both sincere equality and freedom.

According to Rawls, economic equality is the bedrock of a just society. If everyone has the same wealth, then it is fair for all; no one is disadvantaged or advantaged. However, giving everyone the same wealth assumes that everyone has the same needs. Being free means different things to different people, and a society that gives everyone equal wealth is assuming that everyone has the same notion of freedom. Making this decision for everyone robs them of their freedom and equality. While equality denotes acceptance, tolerance, and fairness it is important to consider those things that are dismissed in order to achieve equality. Rawls’s economic ideologies underscore the constraining potential of such forced equality. Those at the top (in terms of intellect, work capacity, skills, wealth, etc…) are forced to compromise or ‘round down’, and those at the bottom are granted status or wealth that they do not deserve. Rawls is willing to dismiss the natural factors that shape the social and intellectual hierarchy in order to secure such equality.

As Aristotle said, “the worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” When everyone--ranging from mediocre to stellar--receives a trophy, no one is really that content. As touched on earlier, personal satisfaction is ultimately of the utmost importance. However, that does not mean that it should supersede external recognition. Knowing where you stand, being able to determine how you and your work are received by others, and having others acknowledge you as you acknowledge yourself are all highly influential factors. I knew that I was not an equal with the more invested players on my team, and I did not need anyone to publicly pretend that I was. The distribution of trophies, a gesture meant to assert that we were all equals, actually served to further inequality. All should be treated equally, and that does not mean that everyone should receive the same trophy or wealth--it means exactly the opposite. Everyone should be treated according to what he or she deserves--based on character, work ethic, intellect, creativity, etc. While the gains may be unequal, the process by which individuals attained their wealth would be ‘equal’.

The equality that Rawls promotes has to do with the ends, rather than the means. In order to justify his ideology he suggests that the means, or the process by which people attain their wealth, is highly unequal or unjust therefore making it an inadequate system to determine wealth. Because some people have, for example, a greater capacity for hard work than others, they will have greater opportunity to achieve wealth. Rawls sees humans’ varying capacities as a problematic source of inequality and therefore, his suggestion to evenly distribute wealth is an attempt to reject such inequality.

Robert Nozick, on the other hand, prioritizes freedom over equality. His three principles on justice in holdings suggest that “if economic inequality is the result of informed, voluntary exchanges among individuals, then significant deviations from economic equality are morally justifiable” (Economic Justice powerpoint). Unlike Rawls, Nozick believes that economic justice depends on the just distribution or exchange of holdings. In prioritizing freedom, a society governed by Nozick’s principles would achieve both freedom and equality.

While Nozick and I would likely agree that equality should be emphasized in regard to the means rather than the ends, Rawls would argue that such an emphasis can be detrimental. When a society allows random and unfair factors to govern the system of success, the success that results is unfair as well. Giving everyone equal wealth shoots two birds with one stone: the unfair “wildcard” qualities are discounted for, and everyone has what they need to live. Rawls would argue that it is more important that everyone is financially stable rather than valuing individuals’ varying abilities. Furthermore, a society that strives for wealth and material items, according to Rawls, is greedy and shallow whereas a society that strives for knowledge and happiness is pleasant and more genuine. Everyone believes that “money does not buy happiness”, however no one is truly willing to give up the chase for wealth. In a society governed by Rawls’ beliefs, people are not fixated on wealth and can truly embrace this anecdote.

Although I respect Rawls’s vision of a more down to earth and non materialistic society, I ultimately believe that his disregard or discredit of individuality is highly problematic. In a 2014 article entitled The Benefits of ‘Binocularity’, social researcher Erik Parens’ addresses the growing influence brain imaging has on the criminal justice system and questions if “advances in neuroscience [will] move reasonable people to abandon the idea that criminals deserve to be punished.” In other words, does knowing that someone has, for example, a thyroid condition absolve the individual from his or her crime? What is particularly relevant about this article is that like Rawls’s work it challenges notions of culpability, the legitimacy of free choice, and how these factors influence our understanding of who deserves what. I am not exactly sure how I would respond to Parens’s question, however I do believe that people have to take responsibility for their actions. One’s actions are an extension of the individual’s character and so if someone has to be punished or rewarded, then it makes most sense to give that punishment or prize to the person that sparked such action. If a society disassociates individuals from their actions, as Rawls promotes (when such actions result in wealth disparity), then individuals lose their sense of individuality.

In order for Rawls’s vision to work, society would have to be comprised of a group of highly secure and content individuals. Additionally, his theories could only be successful if you believe that the pursuit of happiness is just as, if not more, important than the pursuit of wealth. Rawls disregards the fact that people are driven by self interest, and that self interest is not solely defined by achieving happiness or knowledge but also wealth or status. To suggest that people’s internal satisfaction or pride is enough is to assume that the population is full of very secure individuals. Rawls believes that truly content people do not need material incentives or prizes; the prospect of personal satisfaction is enough. In prioritizing personal pride over external recognitions, Rawls criminalizes superficiality. He would assert that those who strive for materialistic items or wealth are trying to fill a self satisfaction shaped void with material items; truly happy and secure individuals would not have such superficial wants. However, is being superficial really the worst thing? If the prospect of wealth motivates someone to pursue a project or job, should that person be condemned for the thing that initially prompted him or her to get involved? Rawls would argue that people should be motivated by the prospect of happiness, but based on the amount of people who are in jobs that they do not like it seems that wealth is a more compelling prospect.

Work cited:

Aristotle. "A Quote by Aristotle." Blog post. Goodreads. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 June 2017. <http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1261749-the-worst-form-of-inequality-is-to-try-to-make>.

Friedman, Milton, M. H. Peston, Peter Jay, Nigel Lawson, and Neil Gordon Kinnock. Created Equal. N.p.: n.p., 1980. Print.

Ideas discussed from Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia”

Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State and Utopia. N.p.: Blackwell, n.d. Print.

Parens, Erik. "The Benefits of 'Binocularity'." The New York Times. The New York Times, 28 Sept. 2014. Web. 12 June 2017. <https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/the-benefits-of-binocularity/?_r=0>.

Ideas discussed from John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice”

      Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. New Delhi: Universal Law Co, 2013. Print.