Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-24T02:56:36.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SOCIAL JUSTICE, GENOMIC JUSTICE AND THE VEIL OF IGNORANCE: HARSANYI MEETS MENDEL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2012

Samir Okasha
Samir Okasha*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

John Harsanyi and John Rawls both used the veil of ignorance thought experiment to study the problem of choosing between alternative social arrangements. With his ‘impartial observer theorem’, Harsanyi tried to show that the veil of ignorance argument leads inevitably to utilitarianism, an argument criticized by Sen, Weymark and others. A quite different use of the veil-of-ignorance concept is found in evolutionary biology. In the cell-division process called meiosis, in which sexually reproducing organisms produce gametes, the chromosome number is halved; when meiosis is fair, each gene has only a fifty percent chance of making it into any gamete. This creates a Mendelian veil of ignorance, which has the effect of aligning the interests of all the genes in an organism. This paper shows how Harsanyi's version of the veil-of-ignorance argument can shed light on Mendelian genetics. There turns out to be an intriguing biological analogue of the impartial observer theorem that is immune from the Sen/Weymark objections to Harsanyi's original.

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 43 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Arrow, K. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Binmore, K. 2006. Natural Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 1991. Weighing Goods. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Conradt, L. and List, C. 2009. Group decisions in humans and animals: a survey. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364: 719–742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crow, J.F. 1991. Why is Mendelian segregation so exact? Bioessays 13: 305–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eshel, I. 1985. Evolutionary genetic stability of Mendelian segregation and the role of free recombination in the chromosomal system. American Naturalist 125: 412–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, S.A. 2003. Repression of competition and the evolution of cooperation. Evolution 57: 693–705.Google ScholarPubMed
Godfrey-Smith, P. 2009. Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haig, D. 1997. The social gene. In Behavioural Ecology, 4th edition, eds. Krebs, J.R. and Davies, N.B., 284–304. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haig, D. and Bergstrom, C.T. 1995. Multiple mating, sperm competition and meiotic drive. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 8: 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haig, D. and Grafen, A. 1991. Genetic scrambling as a defense against meiotic drive. Journal of Theoretical Biology 153: 531–558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, W.D. 1964. The genetical evolution of social behaviour, i and ii. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J.C. 1953. Cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk-taking. Journal of Political Economy 61: 434–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J.C. 1955. Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy 63: 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leigh, E.G. jr. 1971. Adaptation and Diversity. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper.Google Scholar
Leigh, E.G. jr. 1977. How does selection reconcile individual advantage with the good of the group? Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences USA 74: 4542–4546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
List, C. 2004. Democracy in animal groups: a political science perspective. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 168–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyttle, T.W. 1991. Segregation distorters. Annual Review of Genetics 25: 511–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mongin, P. 2001. The impartial observer theorem of social ethics. Economics and Philosophy 17: 147–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okasha, S. 2009. Individuals, groups, fitness and utility: multi-level selection meets social choice theory. Biology and Philosophy 24: 561–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridley, M. 2000. Mendel's Demon: Gene Justice and the Complexity of Life. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
Risse, M. 2002. Harsanyi's ‘utilitarian theorem’ and utilitarianism. Noûs 36: 550–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, J.E. 1998. Theories of Distributive Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. 1976. Welfare inequalities and Rawlsian axiomatics. Theory and Decision 7: 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A.K. 1977. Non-linear social welfare functions: a reply to Professor Harsanyi. In Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences, eds. Butts, R. and Hintikka, J., 297–302. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A.K. 1986. Social choice theory. In Handbook of Mathematical Economics III, eds. Intriligator, M.D. and Arrow, K.J., 1073–1181. Amsterdam: North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. 1996. Evolution of the Social Contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. 1998. Three differences between evolution and deliberation. In Modelling Rationality, Morality and Evolution, ed. Danielson, P., 408–422. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Úbeda, F. and Haig, D. 2005. On the evolutionary stability of Mendelian Segregation. Genetics 170: 1345–1357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vickrey, W.S. 1945. Measuring marginal utility by reaction to risk. Econometrica 13: 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weymark, J. 1991. A reconsideration of the Harsanyi–Sen debate on utilitarianism. In Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-being, eds. Elster, J. and Roemer, J.E., 225–320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar