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 [email protected].
.
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=ucpress8/9/2019 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.jsp8/9/2019 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.jsp8/9/2019 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.jspTop Related