A Theory of Genetic Justice

John Rawls' famous Theory of Justice proposes that the rules of society be designed with a "veil of ignorance" over what our future position in that society may be.  In other words, if we don't know ahead of time our class, intelligence, social status, or "distribution of natural assets and abilities", how would we design our government and society, to give us the best life under every possible scenario under which we could be born; rich or poor, smart or dumb, high or low?

Rawls says that we'd probably design a society in which:

1. Everyone can enjoy basic liberties, and
2. Any inequality of distribution of resources would benefit everyone; opportunities are open to all people with merit, and everyone has a fair chance to develop the skills that would allow them attain merit

So let's consider the genetic perspective, for a moment:

• No two humans have exactly the same gene variants
• Variations in human motivation and talent are largely explained by genetic differences
• We don't have genes; we are our genes

So is Rawls' theory of justice compatible with genetics?  Certainly basic liberties (freedom of speech, ability to run for political office) are nothing without the desire for them. Yet desire and motivation are themselves innate!  Ambition is innate.  Leadership skills and charisma are innate. Not everyone has the fair chance to develop merit, because not everyone is self-motivated.  Some people want to be followers.  Some people are easily derailed by poor impulse control. 

So not everyone "wants" to exercise their basic liberties, because of who they (genetically) are. Yet it's still unfair that some people can afford more free speech than others (because they can buy time on television to promote their favorite cause).

I believe "genetic justice" would require:

• Free (government subsidized) ability to replace your genes with the gene variants that make you motivated to desire basic liberties (if you don't have those variants already)
• Free access to the gene variants that give you the motivation to develop basic skills (merit), since "time on task" leads to skills, but requires motivation to spend the time

Not everyone is innately motivated (without genetic alterations to their nature) to study or improve themselves.  It's just not "who they currently are".  Yet without merit, they will be poor, and will have little access to promote their ideas to a broad audience (free speech).  Of course, no one should be forced to self-alienate themselves by altering their genes (because it does end up changing your nature).

Simply stated, if one does choose to alter his genes, society should pay for it.  And if he refuses, society should support him in the form of monthly Welfare checks, long-term Head Start programs, etc.

Comments

[VERYSCAREDLAYMAN!]

This is terrifying ! Couldn't brutal dictatorships justify their insidieous reigns by simply saying that they are the ones with ambition enough to dominate their societies ?