There are different values — equality vs freedom, selfishness vs altruism — and these mix and interchange. Every individual has different sortings of these values, and while a thought experiment like the Original Position can purge individuals of their individual biases, the idea that we will then reach a consensus may be elusive. In other words, even individauls acting in good faith will disagree about the proper sorting of different values.
Thus, the debate about values is mistaken — and as long as Left and Right differ on values, we will reach no consensus. What is to be done? How can we move forward?
In terms of social justice, there will always be tension and disagreement about the proper amount of redistribution — the difference principle will not be agreed upon, and even if it is, at what level shall it be set.
But what can be agreed upon? Something that is not amenable in the same way to fundamental disagreement — though individuals will disagree, of course. That is the Social Minimum. Instead of the Difference Principle, which may provoke intractable and fundamental disagreement, it is possible that decent citizens will agree on the moral necessity of a Social Minimum, and then merely disagree on what that Minimum should be.
This was once commonplace, but is being lost. But I do believe that conservatives of Faith will nevertheless agree on the need for a Social Minimum. They may argue that welfare is simply the corn laws redux — but if that is their argument, show it, and explain how we prevent people from falling below the Minimum.
Filed under: Uncategorized
