8/9/2019 Review Fishkin&Laslett 1

1/4

Justice Between Age Groups and Generations. by Peter Laslett; James S. FishkinReview by: Gregory S. KavkaEthics, Vol. 104, No. 1 (Oct., 1993), pp. 184-186Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2381710.

Accessed: 23/01/2015 15:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toEthics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 141.85.5.170 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:14:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2381710?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2381710?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

8/9/2019 Review Fishkin&Laslett 1

2/4

184 Ethics October1993

Laslett, Peter, and Fishkin, James S.,

eds. Justice

between ge Groupsand

Generations.

New Haven, Conn.: Yale University ress, 1992. Pp. xii + 243. $30.00 (cloth).

This book is the sixth volume in

the well-knownPhilosophy, Politics, and

Societyseries. Like itspredecessors, t

contains generallyhigh-quality ssays

written

y distinguished

hilosophers, conomists, awyers, olitical cientists

and

historians;

but

unlike

them,

t

s focused

on

a

single general topic: ustice

between

groups

of

people living

over

different ime intervals.Despite the

common topic,

the

essays are

remarkably

iverse

n

subject matter.Looking

at issues nvolving ast generations, eter Laslettdiscusseswhether he

notion

ofa contract r trust etweengenerationsmakessense, George Sherexplores

reasons why laims forcompensationfor

njusticesweaken as new generations

emerge, and

David

Braybrooke argues that the idea of a past social contrac

cannot be used (as some libertarianwriters

ave supposed)

to

legitimize

un-

restricted rivate propertyrights.Focusing on the future,Richard Epstein

contendsthat

social

action to promoteeconomicsavingsfor atergeneration

will be

futile,

while

Derek Parfit nd

Tyler

Cowen

argue

for a zero

rate

of

intergenerational iscount, and Cowen shows how this

discount rate follow

from

onsequentialism,given

certain

plausible assumptions.JonathanGlover

discussesmoral ssues arisingfrompossiblefuturegenetic creeningpractice

for

disability,

nd

Larry

Temkin

shows how

concern

for

equality

adds to the

familiar

consequentialist puzzles

about

justice

between

generations.James

Fishkin nd David Thomson

look

at relations

mong presently xisting enera-

tions. The former

rgues that

the

liberty

o

produce, and

confer

benefits n,

children creates special problems

regarding ustice

for

liberal theory,while

the latter laims that the modernwelfare tate s a device of

insurance

for

the

middle classes,

not

for

redistribution, nd that

its

expansion has worked to

the

great advantage

of the current mature

generation

and the

detriment

f

succeeding generations.

In

their introduction

p. 20),

the editors

mention Sikora and

Barry's

anthology R.

I.

Sikora,

and Brian

Barry, ds., Obligations

oFuture

Generatio

[Philadelphia: Temple University

ress, 1978])

as

the

onlyprevious

collection

of

essays

devoted to

the[ir] subject.

One main

difference etween the two

books

is

instructive s

regards

the

progress

of

the

subject

in

the

decade and

a half since Sikora and

Barry's

volume

appeared.

While the earlier volume

was

devoted

almost

xclusively

o distribution

nd

population problems

ooked

at within

narrowly onsequentialistframework,

he

new

essays

use

and

dis-

cuss social contract heory, iberaltheory, nd egalitarianism s wellas conse-

quentialism

nd

range

over

topics

as diverse

s

genetic creening

nd

compen-

sation

for

past wrongs.

So the

subject

has

expanded

in

both breadth of

topics

covered and

variety

of

methodologies

employed. Unfortunately,

here

has

been little

hange

in

another

respect.

t

is

stillmuch

easier

to

generate prob-

lems than solutions

n

this

area,

so most of the

essays

are devoted to

pointing

out

how moral and

politicaltheorizing

s

made more difficult hen

genera-

tional

issues are taken into account

or

to

criticizing

onventionalviews

that

fail

to

properly ppreciate

the

implications

f

generationalpassage. (Cowen's

essay Consequentialism Implies a Zero Generational Discount Rate is a

welcome

exception

in

his

regard.)

This content downloaded from 141.85.5.170 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:14:49 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/9/2019 Review Fishkin&Laslett 1

3/4

Book Reviews

185

The essays

range so

broadly

that

few specific

ssues

are treated

by

mor

than one

author.

There are,

however,

two multiply

discussed issues

wort

mentioning n thisbriefreview.One concerns the practicalfeasibilityf an

social policy

aimed

at

increasing

avings

forfuture

generations.

n an articl

that

s destined

to

become

a classic and

shouldbe

required

reading

forgradu

ate

students n economics

as

well as

philosophy),

Parfit

nd

Cowen conten

that

the standard

practice

of economistsand

social

planners of

discountin

future

utilities

f

society's present

and future)

members

s

as little

ustifie

as

would

be

a

spatial

discountrate that

discountedpeoples'

utilities

ccordin

to

their

patial

distance

from he decision

maker. They

demonstrate

hatmos

of

the

familiar rguments

for timediscounting e.g.,

uncertainty,

emocrac

are argumentsfor distinctprinciplesthat often significantlyiverge fro

time discounting

in

their implications.

In

the

course of

their discussio

(pp.

157-58), Parfit

nd

Cowen

respond

to Epstein's

essay.

Epstein argue

that

any government

policy

for ncreasing

savings

for future generations

bound

to

fail,

because

the

more support people

expect

their descendants

t

receive

frompublic

funds, he

less of their private

funds

theywillpass

on t

their

heirs

and

the more

they

will onsume

n their wn ifetimes).

n

response

Parfit nd

Cowen

correctly

ote that any

reduction

n

private

bequests

woul

not

fully ffset

he

increased

public savings,

because parents

care about

the

supportingheirhildren,ot simply heirchildrenbeing supported. To prov

the

point,

I

invite

Epstein

to call

my parents-who

live in the

same city

s

he does-and

convince them

to spend

their avings

on their

own retiremen

rather

than leaving

a legacy

to

theirchildren

who are

now

perfectly

apable

of

providing

for themselves.

am

confident

he would

be no

more

successf

in

this

endeavor

than

I

have

been.)

The second

point

that

everal authors

touch on,

though

from

uite

diffe

ent

angles,

concerns relations

fjustice

among

current

uccessive

generation

Fishkin

discusses

the problems

raised

by successive

population

cohorts

o

different izes (e.g., baby boomers and theirchildren)and notes the added

burden a smaller

later

cohort

will have supporting

a

larger

earlier

cohor

which

s

in

retirement

pp.

72-73).

But

he failsto

point

out that

the

negativ

effects

f

this burden

will

vary greatly

depending

on how

many

children

th

smaller

ohort

produces:

more

retired

persons

can

be

supported

with

olerabl

sacrifice

f

fewer

resource-absorbing

hildren re

present.

Even

having

fewe

children will provide

little

relief,

however,

if

the

per capita

resources

th

elderly

require

are increasing.

Thomson claims

that

they

are increasing pp.

224-25),

as

part

ofa

general

pattern

n which

the

recently

etired or

abou

to retire) generationhas been doubly favoredby welfare-state olicies tha

favored

the

young

while

they

were

young,

and

favor

the old now that

the

are

old.

Add to this

Epstein's

observation

that a

large

portion

of

curren

budget

deficits

re

used to

provide

present

onsumption,

nd hence

constitu

transfers

o

present

generations

from

uture

nes,

and a

bleak

picture

merge

regardingproviding

forfuture

generations

n

the

immediatefuture.

Curren

young

people,

in the

years

ahead,

will

be

asked

to

sacrifice

both

(i)

to

hel

numerous

retired persons

who

benefited at

their expense

in the past fro

government

programs

for

the

young

that are

no

longer

available and

fro

enormousdeficit pendingand (ii) to help leave resourcesfor futuregenera

tions.

If,

under the

circumstances,

hey

claim

they

are

being

asked

to

mak

This content downloaded from 141.85.5.170 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:14:49 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/9/2019 Review Fishkin&Laslett 1

4/4

186

Ethics

October

1993

excessive

acrifices

one

of

the

reasons for

withholding

esourcesfrom

utur

generations

that

Parfit

and

Cowen

imply

may

have

moral

legitimacy

pp.

148-49]), they maybe right.This bodes ill forboth politicalstabilityn th

coming

century nd

the

welfareof

future

generations.

t is one

of

the

merit

of

this fine

state-of-the-art

ollection of

essays

that t

brings

such

perplexin

and

disturbingproblems

to

our

attention,

ven

if it

provides ittle

guidance

about how to

solve them.

GREGORY

S.

KAvKA

University

f

California,rvin

Huefner,

Robert P., and

Battin,

Margaret P., eds.

Changing

o

National

Healt

Care.

Salt Lake

City:

University

f Utah

Press,

1992.

Pp.

vii

+

371.

$24.95

(paper).

According

to Battin

and

Huefner,

the

intentionbehind

this

nterdisciplina

collection

f

commissioned

papers

is

not

to focus

on whether

we should

change

to a

national health

care

systembut to

consider

what

ethical

issues would

arise

if

we did

(p.

ix).

In

actuality,

owever,the

contributions

oth

over- and

undershoot

his

ntention.

everal

contributions o not

address

ethical

ssues

raised

by

having a

national health

care system

t

all,

explaining

nstead

wh

we do not

yet have one

(Baumann,

Feldstein,

nd

Brown)

or

comparing the

performance of

our

current

system o

several national

health

care

system

(Waitzman;

J.

Francis

does

argue

in

his

paper

on

cross-national

omparison

that

the kinds

of moral

ustifications

ifferent

ountries

use for their

ystem

have an

effecton

their

structures).

These

contributions-which

are

quite

good-seem more

relevant

to

the debate

about

whether

we

should

establis

national

health

nsurance.

So

does the

contribution

y

Buchi

and

Landesman,

whichargues fora fundamentalrightto health care. Those papers that are

focused on

the ethical

ssues the

editors

ntendedto

have

discussed

neverthe

less

leave

important

gaps.

Specifically,

more

attention

hould

have been

fo

cused

on a

crucial

issue

facing

all

national

systems,

amely,

how to

restric

the benefits

vailable,

specifically, ow to

ration

beneficial

health

care

services

Nevertheless,

this is

a useful

set of

papers

of

high

quality

on

a

topic

of

great mportance.

It

is

commonly

rgued, as Wikler

notes

n

his

overview

ssay

on

ethical

issues,

that

national health

insurance is

incompatiblewith

American

politica

culture.Wikler ssertsthatthis exceptionalism hesis everyonebut Ameri-

cans and South

Africans

have

national

health

nsurance)

s

definitively

efute

by

the

wide

acceptance

of

the

U.S.

Medicare

system.

Baumann, a

historian

provides other

reasons for

rejecting

he

thesis: the

history f

close

encoun-

ters with

national

health

insurance often

points

to

coincidental forces

or

events,

not

American

attitudes r

political

processes,

s the

reason

that

refor

efforts ailed.

Feldstein,

n

economist, rgues that even

now

there s no

unit

behind

a

particular

national health

insurance

proposal because

employers,

providers,

atients,

nd

the

government

ll

have

quite

different

oals.

Never-

theless,the exceptionalism thesis is not dead. In his contribution,Brown

This content downloaded from 141.85.5.170 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:14:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp