Evolution of the Rawlsian Ideal

Why should the best social system be that which is most advantageous to the least well off? Why would anyone but the poorest in society advocate the welfare state? Why have social safety nets?

For the least well off in society these are no-brainers. But what about for the rich- why would someone in the upper financial echelons of society advocate a welfare state? Do humans have an deeply ingrained cultural sense of empathy and compassion driving them to be altruistic, or are there direct benefits to be gained as well?

One could claim that the rich are afraid they could someday become poor, that the safety nets are a form of insurance. This seems rather unlikely. What about the opposite argument that the rich are completely selfless and support the welfare state even though they have absolutely nothing to gain. This hypothesis leaves just as much to be desired.

One could argue that the poor are just as essential as the rich to society. Without the poor, everyone in society essentially shifts down a notch- imagine society without any of the lowest paying jobs- no factory workers, no mall-cops, no CVS employees, not to mention janitors, trashmen and the other invisible jobs which make society function. It's to everyone's advantage to make society "function", and by and large this means supporting those at the low end of the financial spectrum.

A sociobiologist might evoke a form of societal selection, saying individuals work for the good of society as well as looking out for themselves. I know what you're thinking. No, if you're one of those people who hears the word 'group-selection' and laughs, you understand nothing about evolutionary biology. They're called different levels of selection, and yes, society exhibits heritability, variation and selection. The science that comes out in the next ten years is going to blow your mind.

A sociologist might say that the concept of reputation is at stake. Individuals who are openly altruistic will benefit from getting good reputations, and those who are seemingly selfish (like the miserly fool who rejects the welfare state or the rich man who doesn't give to charity) will suffer from the bad reputations they accrue.

What about the student of animal behavior? She might invoke the Handicap Principle, going as far as to say that philanthropists are showing off, essentially proving that they can get along just fine in society even after giving away large sums of money. This is why peacocks have such elaborate tails and why certain types of gazelles stot, or jump, when chased by a predator instead of directly running away- they are in both cases proving that they are superior to other conspecifics, whether the goal is mate attraction or to make the predator give up and pursue someone weaker. Is this type of human altruism just a showy handicap?

Regardless of which hypothesis you're partial to (and there are many more yet unnamed), it is very unlikely that affluent people would pursue social safety nets were it not somehow to their benefit. Even if this is purely a cultural construct, our brains were created through evolution and there are constraints on what we are likely to think and which ideas we are likely to find appealing. The excuse of human exceptionalism through culture falters, falls and tumbles down the hill. Are social safety nets just? Are they a good idea? The fact that we're even thinking about them means they might be advantageous (the view of an evolutionary psychologist, maybe? ;)

One last idea: is the most just system that which is most evolutionarily advantageous to its members? Remember your levels of selection and the question grows infinitely more interesting.