THICAL controversy is perhaps endless; in any case, the issues that divide people cannot necessarily be resolved by logic or evidence. For example, the acceptability of the ten ethical postulates in my paper on How Income Ought To Be Distributed' is a matter of personal appeal, and it would be vain to hope that all readers would find them unexceptionable. Fisher and Rothenberg did not, and in their article in the previous issue of this Journal they neatly dispose of my paradox in distributive ethics by dumping several axioms along with the conclusion.2 Since a major motivation of my article was to induce the reader to struggle with the paradox, I am dismayed only that Fisher and Rothenberg found the struggle so simple. To regain the paradox, I shall get off the fence and argue in support of the rejected axioms and the conclusion. I do so because I think they ought not to be disposed of so lightly. But my defense can possess or lack merit only in terms of its persuasiveness; and all protagonists need not ultimately agree. It was my privilege to comment on an earlier draft of the Fisher-Rothenberg paper, and a number of my objections were met in the final version by qualifications in their text or in footnotes. Yet some of these passing qualifications are precisely the things to be stressed.
Read full abstract