This is the google translation of my previous post. (In brackets, required corrections)
” Starts google translation
What is wrong in this topic [argument]?
March 18, 2010 · Leave a Comment
[a] to E ‘right to reduce the inequalities caused by morally arbitrary factors (non-arbitrariness)
b if inequality is permitted by a principle that expresses an adequate conception of reciprocity, then it is just (reciprocity weak).
c. The difference principle expresses a proper conception of reciprocity (at least when applied to income inequality, wealth and authority consistent fair equality of opportunity).
Premise (c) is the position you on the difference principle Rawls (A Theory of Justice, 2nd ed. P. 88, trans.. P. 112).
The argument is as follows:
1. Inequalities in income, wealth and authority among families of the generation 1 compatible with fair equality of opportunity and the principle of difference (D1) are just (to BEC) [from (b) and (c)]
2. Since D1 inequalities are just (1), they are not arbitrary from the moral point of view
3. D1 inequalities between families of the generation 1 correspond to different social circumstances of origin of the children of the generation 1 (which we call Generation 2)
4. Inequalities of opportunity (D2) between the individuals of generation 2, due to different social circumstances of origin do not result from arbitrary inequalities in terms of morality (from 2 and 3)
5. It’s not fair to remove the inequality (D2) as due to morally arbitrary factors (from ae 4 [from a and 4])
6. Fair equality of inequality of opportunity should be excluded due to different social circumstances of origin [Fair equality of opportunity excludes inequalities due to different social circumstances of origin]
7. The role of fair equality of opportunity, from the standpoint of justice, can not be to reduce inequalities unjust as it is morally arbitrary (from 5 and 6) [Almost correct, but still understandable?]
But then, what is the purpose of fair equality of opportunity? (Note that this issue creates problems dualistic interpretation of justice as fairness.)
I found that the argument is invalid (even though I disagree with the conclusion for different reasons). Do you agree? If so, do you where is the error?
END of translation”
The translation quality (nOt the argument) is IMPRESSIVE, isn’t it?