Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:45:00.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INCENTIVE INEQUALITIES AND FREEDOM OF OCCUPATIONAL CHOICE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2015

Douglas Mackay
Douglas Mackay*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Policy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Abernethy Hall 217, CB 3435, 131 S. Columbia St., Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. Email: dmackay@email.unc.edu. URL: http://dmackay.web.unc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

In Rescuing Justice and Equality, G.A. Cohen argues that the incentive inequalities permitted by John Rawls's difference principle are unjust since people cannot justify them to their fellow citizens. I argue that citizens of a Rawlsian society can justify their acceptance of a wide range of incentive inequalities to their fellow citizens. They can do so because they possess the right to freedom of occupational choice, and are permitted – as a matter of justice – to exercise this right by making occupational decisions on the basis of a wide range of values and preferences.

Keywords

incentivesdifference principleG.A. CohenJohn Rawlsequality
Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 21 - 49
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

REFERENCES

Arnold, S. 2012. The Difference Principle at Work. Journal of Political Philosophy 20: 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, B. 1989. Theories of Justice: A Treatise on Social Justice, Volume 1. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 2008. Rescuing Justice and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 2000. Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Estlund, D. 1998. Liberalism, equality, and fraternity in Cohen's critique of Rawls. Journal of Political Philosophy 6: 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, D. 2013. Incentive inequalities and talents: a reply to Shiffrin. Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel 41: 521–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, T. 1991. Equality and Partiality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Narveson, J. 1978. Rawls on equal distribution of wealth. Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel 7: 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otsuka, M. 2008. Freedom of occupational choice. Ratio XXI: 440–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999a. A Theory of Justice, Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999b. Kantian constructivism in moral theory. In John Rawls: Collected Papers, ed. Freeman, S., 303–358. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999c. Social unity and primary goods. In John Rawls: Collected Papers, ed. Freeman, S., 359–387. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 2003. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, ed. Kelly, E.. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 2005. Political Liberalism, Expanded edition. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, S. V. 2010. Incentives, motives, and talents. Philosophy and Public Affairs 38: 111–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanczyk, L. 2012. Productive justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs 40: 144–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, C. 2004. Justice and personal pursuits. Journal of Philosophy CI: 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titelbaum, M. G. 2008. What would a Rawlsian ethos of justice look like? Philosophy and Public Affairs 36: 289–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasi, J. 2012. Free Market Fairness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Parijs, P. 1991. Why surfers should be fed: the liberal case for an unconditional basic income. Philosophy and Public Affairs 20: 101–131.Google Scholar