Why I love my brother... for nerds

(Note: this is an IM conversation between me and my brother. If you know nothing about, or care nothing about, social justice theory you may consider wandering off, making yourself a cup of fair trade coffee, and spending twenty minutes helping poor people in Guatemala than reading the following post.)

[19:58] memyselfandI: I'm writing a paper on environment and justice, and I need another theme... I already have sustainable development and global commons, and I need one or two more issues
[19:59] memyselfandI: what do you think, right to development, carbon trading schemes or...?
[19:59] Brother: carbon trading for a justice paper?
[20:00] memyselfandI: jes
[20:00] memyselfandI: yes
[20:00] Brother: and I'm still not sure I buy right to development, but I come from a fairly privledged position so...
[20:00] memyselfandI: theoretical basis is social justice theories, primarily from rawls and nozick, with hints of locke thrown in for good measure
[20:00] memyselfandI: so carbon trading is an example of trying to design a 'just' system of pollution
[20:01] memyselfandI: based on egalitarian principles, with a dash of market mechanism to make the whole thing work...
[20:02] Brother: viel of ignorance is great... but it misses the huge step of how to get from where we are to where we ought to be
[20:03] memyselfandI: well, who defines where we ought to be?
[20:03] memyselfandI: I'd guess about 2/3 of all justice theorists have some kind of ur-starting point, rawls' veil, nozick's island, dworkin's auction
[20:05] Brother: basically
[20:05] Brother: its the same approach of state of nature
[20:05] memyselfandI: yeah, I know
[20:05] memyselfandI: theories and more theories
[20:05] memyselfandI: some of which are descriptive, some normative, and some simply idealistic
[20:06] Brother: basically
[20:06] memyselfandI: anyways, I have used rawls and nozick as my basis on which to evaluate various concepts
[20:06] memyselfandI: I can't cover the entire field of social justice theory so I picked two
[20:07] Brother: heh
[20:07] Brother: fair enough
[20:07] memyselfandI: and I need another 8-10 pages, though I haven't yet written intro or conclusion
[20:07] Brother: right to development would give some ample room for discussion
[20:08] memyselfandI: yeah
[20:08] memyselfandI: I mentioned it briefly already
[20:10] Brother: what is your general thesis?
[20:12] memyselfandI: that discussion of the environment in terms of justice is often done without considering the meaning of the word 'justice', often resulting in confusing or contradictary conceptions and actions
[20:13] memyselfandI: 'an evaluation of environmental justice'
[20:13] Brother: so if these discussions occur without considering the meaning of justice, how is it used?
[20:14] memyselfandI: as a generally fuzzy catch-all
[20:15] memyselfandI: are we talking justice in terms of distribution, in terms of exchange, in terms of procedure--is it 'just' if the procedures are just but the results not, is 'just' the same as equal, if justice is determined by distribution, is this distribution based on need, equality, or performance?
[20:15] memyselfandI: that was basically the class
[20:16] Brother: heh, welcome to phil 2001
[20:16] memyselfandI: with a whole other seciton on market economy, what that is, what it means, and if and how it could be combined with a concept of social justice
[20:16] memyselfandI: yeah, pretty much
[20:17] memyselfandI: so, if we are talking ecological justice in terms of access to resources, should this be equal access? Even if a person in Africa, for his standard of living or even for twice his standard of living only half the resources 'needs' than your average American
[20:18] memyselfandI: and if we are determining who has access to resources, who decides? who owns them anyways, and why? why is a common good such as the atmosphere even a common good?
[20:18] memyselfandI: and why should we care about future generations at all, except out of guilty conscience?
[20:18] memyselfandI: that is basically my paper
[20:18] memyselfandI: lots of questions, fewer answers but much discussion
[20:20] Brother: not a fan of saving the planet for your children?
[20:21] memyselfandI: theoretically, I would need to justify why, and not just because I like them
[20:24] Brother: what better reason could there be? you want to ensure a better word for your progengy... you live in an interconnected world where the issues of one are fast becoming the issues of all...
[20:25] memyselfandI: true, but what responsibllity do I have to the future? Is there a categorical imperitive to improve the lot of future generations?
[20:25] memyselfandI: Höffe, for example, handles that by saying it's all an exchange, you care for your kids when they are helpless so they care for you when you are helpless
[20:25] Brother: you have an obligation to your children
[20:26] memyselfandI: says who?
[20:26] memyselfandI: (I am playing devil's advocate, so you know)
[20:26] Brother: (I figured)
[20:26] memyselfandI: what is my obligation?
[20:26] Brother: your genes, your personal happiness, ground it however you like
[20:27] memyselfandI: what kind of philosopher are you?
[20:27] Brother: haha!
[20:28] memyselfandI: Rawls' argument, that decisions on social order are done behind the veil of ignorance, such that you don't know what society you will belong to or your place in it, can also be applied to generational justice--you pick the best conditions for possible future generations because you might end up there
[20:28] Brother: it could

(the punchline, and the reason I posted this)

[20:28] Brother: I'm just having visions of invisible hands fighting viels of ignorance
[20:29] memyselfandI: hahaha
[20:29] memyselfandI: hayek would be proud
[20:29] memyselfandI: like a philosophical fencing match
[20:30] memyselfandI: touché