Comments on: On Income Inequality and the Question of Justice

By: Hunter Baker

Hunter Baker — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:12:01 +0000

Mr. Ehrlich, you have essentially used the entire thread to complain rather than to set forth any real counterargument. First off, it is not clear that everyone should regard the argument Sandel put forth on the show as a strawman. I think it is a reasonable argument deserving of a response and thus responded. Second, you have confined your efforts on this thread to saying that Sandel would have more to say about this. Well, then say it or leave off with the objection.

By: C. Ehrlich

C. Ehrlich — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:24:42 +0000

Mr. Baker, it looks like you just need to re-read my last comment. The relevant differences with the case you’ve just described are obvious enough.

By: Hunter Baker

Hunter Baker — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:13:18 +0000

No, there is no problem here. If I go on television and say that the reason we must have school choice is because public school teachers are all unionized secularists and someone shoots my argument down, all that has happened is that a particular argument is shot down. It doesn’t mean that everyone should assume that I have no other arguments.

By: C. Ehrlich

C. Ehrlich — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:43:26 +0000

Mr. Baker apparently still fails to see the problem: there is nothing in the interview (much less in “Sandel’s entire corpus”) that excuses Mr. Baker’s simplistic characterization and dismissal of “Sandel’s case for redistribution.”

Look at it this way. If someone points out that X is a factor to consider in one’s arguments about fairness, it’s entirely inappropriate to ascribe to that person the view that X is essentially the only factor to consider in questions about redistribution. It’s especially inappropriate if all you’ve heard of this person are these three short and impromptu spoken responses!

As I said at the beginning, “while some might think it serves Sandel right to be dismissed with a straw man argument, maybe Mr. Hunter takes this strategy too far.”

By: Hunter Baker

Hunter Baker — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:09:38 +0000

Albert, I just saw your comment. And I agree with you. There is little doubt that certain structures of government and corporate affairs lead to non-market (non-merit) types of distribution. That’s why I tried to use examples that didn’t dwell on that sort of thing. For example, I suspect that some executive compensation bears little relation to the actual value of the individual’s contribution.

By: Hunter Baker

Hunter Baker — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:17:50 +0000

C. Ehrlich, the natural thing for you to do here would be to offer a rebuttal.

By: C. Ehrlich

C. Ehrlich — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:00:27 +0000

The problem is obviously not that Hunter Baker fails to address “Sandel’s entire corpus.” I suppose, however, that this is the easier charge to defend himself against–much as it is easier to attack Sandel’s brief spoken comments by ascribing to him the ridiculous assumption that effort is essentially all that matters (as if that’s entailed by anything Sandel says in his short comments!).

Whether or not Mr. Baker realizes he’s attacking straw men is almost irrelevant. It’s disappointing either way.

By: Hunter Baker

Hunter Baker — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:44:37 +0000

Livingston, yes, I think I was pretty clear that the entire column was a response to the presentation made in the episode. Indeed, the lead paragraph of the column indicates as much and links to a transcript of the program. In addition, I think Mr. Ehrlich makes too much of the fact that Sandel’s entire corpus is not addressed. Clearly, he felt the argument was worth advancing in the form he advanced it, as did the people who made the program. That’s more than enough for me to take it upon myself to address the argument AS PRESENTED.

To the extent that Mr. Ehrlich is aware of a much better argument made by Professor Sandel that would destroy the critique I have offered, I would like to see it and benefit from it. Perhaps I can come up with something better than that! :-)

By: Livingston Dell

Livingston Dell — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:46:25 +0000

“This makes it especially hard to take Hunter’s review seriously.”

If the only criticism or constructive discussion you can provide is that his disclaimer wasn’t spelled out for you, than the above statement is rather ironic.

I thought it was made very clear (correct me if I am wrong Mr. Baker) that the review was on the contents of the episode. I’m sure that if Mr. Baker’s review was meant for the worldview and extensive philosophies of Sandel than he would be more than able to write a comprehensive review.

Mr. Baker,
Very good article in my opinion. There are a few things that Albert pointed out that I would say I agree with, but on the whole the review was very informative and a good read. Thank you!

By: C. Ehrlich

C. Ehrlich — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:47:39 +0000

Well, if in fact true, it’d be more honest to have said something like this: “These three short and impromptu comments are actually all I know about Sandel’s views on distributive justice.”

But, then again, that would still leave one to wonder about the appropriateness of his “article,” not to mention the charity of his interpretations.

By: Hunter Baker

Hunter Baker — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:37:42 +0000

:-)

By: TimC

TimC — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:31:36 +0000

C. Ehrlich,

Maybe you’re looking for something like:
“Now, perhaps Dr. Sandel was limited by the constraints of television…”

Oh, wait…

By: C. Ehrlich

C. Ehrlich — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:30:15 +0000

Mr. Baker, I take it that this means you don’t know much about Sandel’s views beyond what you’ve seen in this incredibly brief interview. While this would partially explain your comments, I don’t see how it really excuses them. Something of a disclaimer probably would have been in order.

By: Hunter Baker

Hunter Baker — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:12:16 +0000

However, they are the views he set forth in the program and that are featured therein. And which require an answer. I would hope that you are right that such views would be considered naive. I think it is actually the case that many people are convinced by them.

By: C. Ehrlich

C. Ehrlich — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:55:40 +0000

Let’s put it more simply then. To be effective, Mr. Hunter’s criticism rests on the charge that Sandel’s views on distributive justice are insensitive to the factors he mentions. Now, while there may be plenty of good reasons to criticize Sandel’s views, attributions of such naivete just isn’t one of them. This makes it especially hard to take Hunter’s review seriously.