PO301 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Diminishing Returns, Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit
Po301 lesson 11
2. Distribute to those who will benefit most - maximise total benefit. Popular
argument for redistribution is that poor benefit more than rich from the
resources - diminishing marginal returns, in terms of benefit, to
goods/resources. Giving resources to those who will benefit most may yield
greater equality of goods/resources but the reason for the distribution is not
equality. Again, only interested in benefit from distribution, so not strict
egalitarian.
3. Priority to the worse off; this principle is concerned with the absolute fate of
the less advantaged - it is irrelevant whether they are more or less advantaged
than others, so long as nobody falls below a certain level of advantage.
Sometimes supports equality and sometimes inequality. This priority rain
thought is not that we should give the goods/resources to the worst off because
they will benefit more, that would be 2. This thought is that it matters more to
benefit a worse off person than a better off person even if the amount they
benefit is the same, because we can more increase the level of wellbeing and
quality of life.
Problems with priority; might lead to benefitting less well off a very small
amount to harm well off lots - should we only care about maximising their
position or does this depend on the extent that we make the best off worse off.
How much priority; absolute priority? But then levelling down objection. Hard to
see how to set level of priority except by intuition. 2nd problem with priority
occurs when everybody is well off for example - what if the worst off person is
still very wealthy. Maybe this concern is actually with priority to the badly off,
not the worse off.
4. Sufficiency; nobody should be allowed to fall below a certain level of
advantage. May support equality ie producing more equal distribution by taking
from rich - but also may support inequality, there is no objection to inequality
here so long as it does not conflict with sufficiency. Bear in mind the totality of
what makes people worse off. On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt.
Modest sufficientarianism - sufficiency has priority over other distributive ideals.
Ideal that individuals should have enough is more urgent than other ideals, such
as equality or priority, or benefiting individuals.
Dismissive sufficientarianism - sufficiency is sufficient for distributive justice.
Document Summary
Po301 lesson 11: distribute to those who will benefit most - maximise total benefit. Popular argument for redistribution is that poor benefit more than rich from the resources - diminishing marginal returns, in terms of benefit, to goods/resources. Giving resources to those who will benefit most may yield greater equality of goods/resources but the reason for the distribution is not equality. This priority rain thought is not that we should give the goods/resources to the worst off because they will benefit more, that would be 2. Hard to see how to set level of priority except by intuition. 2nd problem with priority occurs when everybody is well off for example - what if the worst off person is still very wealthy. Maybe this concern is actually with priority to the badly off, not the worse off: sufficiency; nobody should be allowed to fall below a certain level of advantage.
