A Fair Society: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » A Fair Society » A Fair Society

A Fair Society
a look at this idea.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

A Fair Society

Mystikiwi
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2007
Location: New Zealand
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 54

Posted 03/27/08 - 05:00 AM:	#26
I don't think justice necessarily equals fairness. Laws can be applied in ways that are unfair at times. What we think is "fair" is such a subjective judgment that there can be no objective standard of it, IMO. But instead, we can simply discover who we personally get on well with and who we don't get on with and decide for ourselves who we want to spend time with, work for and/or support.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1740

Posted 03/27/08 - 05:57 AM:	#27
Rawls does not equate fairness with justice but equates the just society with a fair society. The basic rules of which would be equality and freedom. Interestingly enough Rawls' original position is indeed one of many but he makes a good argument why his should be the correct one for a fair society. Cortes' example of a drugged person could be an original position but should be discarded as it is common knowledge that drugs influence decision making. Rawls is accused of stacking the cards but he gives reasons as to the rules of the game of the original position. These reasons are a result of Rawls' preconceptions but fairly axiomatic. Some people disagree with the reasoning but attacking the TE for the fact that it is a TE is rather silly. It is entirely normal to work within a hypothetical situation in which we wilfully eliminate information. Furthermore, it's interesting to see that no one brings up that the original position is only ONE part of Rawls' theory as to how to reach a just society. The second part is perhaps even more important because the original position can be amended by it. It's very pragmatic. I'd like for Cortes to tell us what it's called so he can prove he ACTUALLY read Rawls.
_____________________ - How are you doing? - I'm doing good. _ No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 1210

Posted 03/27/08 - 08:38 AM:	#28
Mystikiwi wrote: I don't think justice necessarily equals fairness. Laws can be applied in ways that are unfair at times. What we think is "fair" is such a subjective judgment that there can be no objective standard of it, IMO. But instead, we can simply discover who we personally get on well with and who we don't get on with and decide for ourselves who we want to spend time with, work for and/or support. This neatly explains why the pursuit of universal justice is futile. You have probably offered the wisest paragraph in this thread. Benkei wrote: Interestingly enough Rawls' original position is indeed one of many but he makes a good argument why his should be the correct one for a fair society. Cortes' example of a drugged person could be an original position but should be discarded as it is common knowledge that drugs influence decision making. Rawls is accused of stacking the cards but he gives reasons as to the rules of the game of the original position. These reasons are a result of Rawls' preconceptions but fairly axiomatic. Litkey offered the same objection and so I substituted ignorance of science and some magic tricks with the TV to demonstrate my godliness. But like Litkey, you miss the point. Yes, it is well known that "drugs influence decision making". But guess what? Ignorance influences decision making too! In fact, that is the whole point of Rawls experiment, to create a fantasy world in which people give answers more to his liking by because of ignorance of their self interest. If anything that might influence decision making is to be regarded as improper, as it should, then we can safely toss out Rawls entire theory. Benkei wrote: Some people disagree with the reasoning but attacking the TE for the fact that it is a TE is rather silly. It is entirely normal to work within a hypothetical situation in which we wilfully eliminate information. No kidding! I pointed out long ago in the thread on "rights" that most people do not equate fairness with equality of condition. Now I will give Rawls credit for a slight improvement over traditional socialist thinking: he adds a level of indirection that allows a slight reflection of reality over most socialist theories. But that is a bit like Gorbachev's effort to reform Communism. If a little more reality is a good thing, why not a lot more? Personally, I favor making choices with all the knowledge of reality I can muster. Why should moral choices be any different?
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 1210

Posted 03/27/08 - 08:40 AM:	#29
Nonblack Raven wrote: ...I don't think Rawls succeeds even on his own terms of using the original position to show that a rational person in the original position must arrive at Rawls own views about justice. Well done. I think we've pretty much beat Rawls to a pulp here. It's beginning to look a little gratuitous.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 760

Posted 03/27/08 - 08:57 AM:	#30
cortes wrote: Well done. I think we've pretty much beat Rawls to a pulp here. It's beginning to look a little gratuitous. Its not a matter of beating someone to a pulp good buddy, its about ideas and exploring them. Rawls' Original Position is about people making choices, people making choices when they are ignorant of their own interests, and Ignorant of what place they will be given in society, in the Institutions of society once they traverse away from the Veil of Ignorance; I know I've explained this to you, but perhaps the penny will drop, - it is about people making rational choices, chocies that they think is in their interest. Its certainly hypothetical, but what Rawls is looking at (as NBR was saying also) is fair institutions, a fair system of government, one where democracy prevails - it has nothing to do with socialism- It is about social, political, and economical fairness. We might think "fairness" is a crap idea, and that might makes right, this is fair enough, and the Rawlsian idea can sit along fine with this, as people will still be ignorant of their place in society, and their chooses will still need to be made; you haven't made much sense I'd have to say, and what you, ironically enough, have failed to do- is put yourelf in this original position. YOu say people are irrational? 1- You haven't explained this, and 2- I would argue you would make rational choices at the veil of ignorance.
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1740

Posted 03/27/08 - 08:59 AM:	#31
Litkey offered the same objection and so I substituted ignorance of science and some magic tricks with the TV to demonstrate my godliness. But like Litkey, you miss the point. Yes, it is well known that "drugs influence decision making". But guess what? Ignorance influences decision making too! In fact, that is the whole point of Rawls experiment, to create a fantasy world in which people give answers more to his liking by because of ignorance of their self interest. If anything that might influence decision making is to be regarded as improper, as it should, then we can safely toss out Rawls entire theory. Ignorance does not influence decision making, it influences the decision. The difference is that decision making is a faculty we employ to arrange input in a certain way that allows us to come to a decision. Some will call it rationality. You may have noticed the word here or there. You change the input you'll arrive at different results. This exactly why Rawls wants to introduce the veil of ignorance by making all input for everyone the same. The assumption is then that humans as rational beings will come to the same decisions. And Rawls has been attacked by far better works than the meager rantings I have seen in this thread or any other with your name in it Cortes. His specific just society is not mine either but guess what? Rawls even foresaw that and introduced a second aspect. Again and again you just simply prove you have never read him because you're so fixated on his original position, or "fantasy world". The original position certainly is important but "just" an original position. Try again, and tell me what the second aspect of his theory is and explain it to me. If Rawls would be so easily put aside then why do you think Nozick required a book to refute parts of it? And then he's not thought to be (completely) successful by most (an introduction to political philosophy should make that much apparent). Is it a) because Nozick is a retard or b) because you overestimate your own intelligence? And yes, that was a rhetorical question.
_____________________ - How are you doing? - I'm doing good. _ No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661

Posted 03/27/08 - 09:10 AM:	#32
Benkei I think you're being a little harsh. One can criticise a theory in a forum like this without posting a complete and detailed rebuttle.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661

Posted 03/27/08 - 09:14 AM:	#33
It seems to me that it is only through the awareness and congnition of our own self interests that we become aware of the interests of others. Would not ignorance of our own self interests lead us to be ignorant of everyone elses interests?

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1740

Posted 03/27/08 - 09:22 AM:	#34
2) that we make our choice of the best society based solely on the criteria that whoever we are, we want to be as happy as that person who we will be can possibly be. This is a radically selfish criterion. An odd attribute of Rawls approach to the original position is that any kind of altruism, whether toward others or toward certain kinds of social goals (advancement of art, or science or indeed, any concept of justice other than Rawls definition) is inadmissible. You cannot derive Rawls results if persons in the original position are any kind of altruist who values anything other than their own narrowly defined happiness as important. Good point, non-black raven. It raises the question first whether altruism is rational to begin with. It is in fact my main problem with Rawls because I do not believe humans are rational at all. They are great at rationalising their predispositions and feelings and putting them in words but other than that...? Of course I also believe in predetermined emotions that can be predicted, so we wouldn't be that far off after all. However, Rawls does recognise the positive effects of laws that enforce inequality. This follows from his difference principle. Meaning that an inequality (considered unjust by Rawls) existing between two parties that would be removed and then lead to the worst of party becoming even worse off should remain in tact. With regard to anti-social behaviour, the enforcement of taxes is justified by Rawls by showing first that common goods are necessary (army and police for instance) and that if paying taxes were optional the social people who would be willing to pay for common goods would be unnecessarily burdened (also paying for those not willing to pay), and acting in their self-interest, many, in principal social people, would stop paying taxes as well due to this additional burden and affront to their presumed sense of fairness (why pay for the other guy when he's not paying for me!).
_____________________ - How are you doing? - I'm doing good. _ No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 1210

Posted 03/27/08 - 09:32 AM:	#35
litkey wrote: Its certainly hypothetical, but what Rawls is looking at (as NBR was saying also) is fair institutions, a fair system of government, one where democracy prevails - it has nothing to do with socialism- It is about social, political, and economical fairness. We might think "fairness" is a crap idea, and that might makes right, this is fair enough, and the Rawlsian idea can sit along fine with this, as people will still be ignorant of their place in society, and their chooses will still need to be made; you haven't made much sense I'd have to say, and what you, ironically enough, have failed to do- is put yourelf in this original position. I'm not sure if you really believe what you wrote. What Rawls is offering is the socialist opinion of fairness and justice. If you want to get a different view, simply crack open Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness". Now I have my own criticisms of Rand as well but you should at least be aware that not everyone shares your socialist beliefs. [quote=litkey]YOu say people are irrational? 1- You haven't explained this, and 2- I would argue you would make rational choices at the veil of ignorance. I thought I had but no matter, I'll repeat myself: 1) trace the justification of any claim and at each point ask "why?". Eventually you will arive at the axioms that are themselves unjustified. Reason/rationality is a tool for getting from A->B but it won't give you A. 2) ignorance is not a guide to rationality. The more knowledge you have, the better results you obtain from reasoning. Willful ignorance is irrational.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1740

Posted 03/27/08 - 09:33 AM:	#36
Fried Egg wrote: It seems to me that it is only through the awareness and congnition of our own self interests that we become aware of the interests of others. Would not ignorance of our own self interests lead us to be ignorant of everyone elses interests? Well, I was rereading Rawls on this point as well and it's usually the simplified explanation of his original position but in fact those in the original position are agents unaware of the principals they represent. And in fact, the thought experiment actually depends on the fact that people will vote in self-interest but that they are entirely unaware of their particular position. The idea is that it is in their (principals') self-interest to vote for a non-slave society because they might be a slave. That an army and police is beneficial for enforcement of our agreements etc. that taxes therefore are necessary but that the poor should not be taxed too severely; after all, they might have to defend themselves against foreign invaders, have a contract enforced or be actually poor. The novelty of Rawls original position is of course that it's not a negotiation but a situation of CHOICE. This is what so pertinently sets him aside from contract theorists.
_____________________ - How are you doing? - I'm doing good. _ No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 1210

Posted 03/27/08 - 09:38 AM:	#37
Benkei wrote: This exactly why Rawls wants to introduce the veil of ignorance by making all input for everyone the same. The assumption is then that humans as rational beings will come to the same decisions. Which I pointed out before: the more ignrance you impose, the more homogeneous the results. So what?! Why in the world would we want to trade good, informed choices for homogenous ignorant ones? Benkei wrote: If Rawls would be so easily put aside then why do you think Nozick required a book to refute parts of it? Libraries are filled with detailed refutations of Communism. But I need only one good reason to direct my search for answers elsewhere. If you want to know all the reasons that Rawls is full of it then go read the critical books. But I think we've certainly covered enough ground here to satisfy those who are not Rawlsians.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 1210

Posted 03/27/08 - 09:40 AM:	#38
Fried Egg wrote: It seems to me that it is only through the awareness and congnition of our own self interests that we become aware of the interests of others. Would not ignorance of our own self interests lead us to be ignorant of everyone elses interests? A brilliant observation. In fact this is pretty well demonstrated by human cognitive development. One thing I have noticed is that there seems to be a strong inverse correlation between obsession with social justice and people skills. To be good with other people you have to accept them as they are. People obsessed with social justice, on the other hand, invent fantasy utopia worlds and relate to people on that basis.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1740

Posted 03/27/08 - 09:46 AM:	#39
human cognitive development Lol. You do accept psychological and neuro-biological assessment of cognitive development but not of their research and results into embedded morality. This coming from you is incredibly rich.
_____________________ - How are you doing? - I'm doing good. _ No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 1210

Posted 03/27/08 - 09:49 AM:	#40
Benkei wrote: Lol. You do accept psychological and neuro-biological assessment of cognitive development but not of their research and results into embedded morality. This coming from you is incredibly rich. Once again you misrepresent what I've said. I have consistently agreed that there is plenty of evidence of embedded morality. What I have disputed you on is your selectivity with respect to naturalism. There is equal evidence of embedded predation. So if naturaleis your justificaiton then we have a right to predation. (And I"ve also pointed out that there is great variability in what people regard as "fair" or "just" or "right".)
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 250

Posted 03/27/08 - 03:02 PM:	#41
Benkei wrote: And in fact, the thought experiment actually depends on the fact that people will vote in self-interest but that they are entirely unaware of their particular position. Bullshit. There's no other way to put it. If they are voting in their self-interest then they HAVE to be aware of their particular position. I mean, sure, they can be kept ignorant of whether they are or are not a slave, but the experiment still depends on their PARTICULAR, SUBJECTIVE displeasure regarding slavery. If "voting in their self-interest" means that slavery won't exist, then that means that the voter's PARTICULAR INTEREST is one which desires NOT TO BE A SLAVE. But what if one person WANTS to be a slave? Read the example I gave in my other post. One person says "welfare is good because I might be poor and I'll need it." And another person says "welfare is bad; even if I am poor I would not want to live off others." His thought experiment comes crashing down. Rawls wants everyone's personal interest to be the same as his so his "just" society can exist. But this will NEVER HAPPEN. He couldn't even create a possibility of it in his silly thought experiment, which depends on the subjective interests of the voter. His entire thought experiment is laughable. Again, he has to invent an imaginary world where everyone has the same position as him: one that says slavery is bad and some taxes are ok and that the poor should not be taxed heavily (examples you gave in your other paragraph) because such a world does not exist. He has to create a false reality because its the only place where all of the people will agree with each other about everything. But his thought experiment itself RELIES on the particular interest of the voter, which WILL be different. There's no way to avoid this. Once more: ridiculous. As to your other question: If Rawls would be so easily put aside then why do you think Nozick required a book to refute parts of it? Nozick must have overestimated the challenge that Rawls posed. He should have dismissed him in one paragraph. I can refute him in one sentence: People are different. And then he's not thought to be (completely) successful by most (an introduction to political philosophy should make that much apparent). Ad populum. Is it a) because Nozick is a retard No, smart people can make mistakes too. He just should have realized that Rawls thought experiment to eliminate personal interests depends on personal interest; thus being inherently unsuccessful. or b) because you overestimate your own intelligence? No. But Rawls overestimates his. Edited by JAC on 03/27/08 - 03:16 PM
_____________________ "A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 760

Posted 03/28/08 - 02:41 AM:	#42
cortes wrote: If you want to get a different view, simply crack open Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness". Now I have my own criticisms of Rand as well but you should at least be aware that not everyone shares your socialist beliefs. Cortes, you are nothing but a distorter. I'm far from being a socialist. Ayn Rand, have you flipped your lid?? I thought I had but no matter, I'll repeat myself: 1) trace the justification of any claim and at each point ask "why?". Eventually you will arive at the axioms that are themselves unjustified. Reason/rationality is a tool for getting from A->B but it won't give you A. 2) ignorance is not a guide to rationality. The more knowledge you have, the better results you obtain from reasoning. Willful ignorance is irrational. What are you on about? "axioms of belief" ? Do you think before you say something? I've got nothing against people with mental difficulties, I just think they could get a little help.
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 760

Posted 03/28/08 - 02:58 AM:	#43
FriedEgg, Fried Egg wrote: It seems to me that it is only through the awareness and congnition of our own self interests that we become aware of the interests of others. Would not ignorance of our own self interests lead us to be ignorant of everyone elses interests? This is a well crafted argument against the original position, or the "veil of ignorance", although not one that Rawls did not notice himself. Rawls places his weights firmly with the Individual at the original position, so that the Individual is forced to be self-interested, and in being self-interested (protecting Individuality in an ethico-political way), this ensures the liberty of all Individuals once the Veil has been lifted. There are certain aspects a person does not know of themself- age, sex, religion, race etc., - and this is done to derive a certain principle of, call it what you like, fairness, justice, whatever; the VOI ensures a certain hue of impartiality; we all know, we all realize, that birth, sex, wealth - are all Contingent- and this is what Rawls does away with - and he augments the idea that fairness is something that could be chosen; yes, it is hypothetical, but some of us can see how this would work in the practical world. Someone haphazzardly mentioned Nozick; well, the above is a better political argument that Nozicks, as all N has is "Well, what can we do about it?" (referring to the Contingency problem).
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1740

Posted 03/28/08 - 04:40 AM:	#44
JAC wrote: Bullshit. There's no other way to put it. If they are voting in their self-interest then they HAVE to be aware of their particular position. I mean, sure, they can be kept ignorant of whether they are or are not a slave, but the experiment still depends on their PARTICULAR, SUBJECTIVE displeasure regarding slavery. Great. Another person who doesn't read the books he prefers to piss on. Rawls doesn't eliminate self-interest, he eliminates knowledge of the principals the agents represent. So instead of the agents realising they represent the poor and corporate business investors respectively, it could be either way. By not knowing who they represent, they will have to come to choices that will be balanced between the poor and investors so as not the fuck over the people they're supposed to be protecting. Through the thought experiment the problem of choice becomes determinate.
_____________________ - How are you doing? - I'm doing good. _ No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661

Posted 03/28/08 - 06:25 AM:	#45
Benkei Rawls doesn't eliminate self-interest, he eliminates knowledge of the principals the agents represent. So instead of the agents realising they represent the poor and corporate business investors respectively, it could be either way. By not knowing who they represent, they will have to come to choices that will be balanced between the poor and investors so as not the fuck over the people they're supposed to be protecting. I will readily admit that I haven't read any of Rawls work but from what I've read in this thread, I'm not really convinced. Consider, for example, someone who has natural entrepeneurial inclinations and talent. Even under this "veil of ignorance", he will still be aware of his inclinations and talents, will he not? He will know, or expect to be, an entrepeneur in this society because it is through his actions, and not merely something that is allocated to people by some central authority, that he realises who he becomes. If the "veil of ignorance" is lifted and he finds himself a factory worker, he will not remain so for long. He will set about realising his ambition making use of his talents. Whether or not he would actually succeed is pretty much irrelevent because when choosing from his own self-interest, he will take his own inclinations and perceived talents into account. Or is Rawls saying that this too would have to be included under the "veil of ignorance"? How much of an individual would he be after this was stripped away? Edited by Fried Egg on 03/28/08 - 07:25 AM

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 1210

Posted 03/28/08 - 07:13 AM:	#46
litkey wrote: cortes wrote: If you want to get a different view, simply crack open Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness". Now I have my own criticisms of Rand as well but you should at least be aware that not everyone shares your socialist beliefs. Cortes, you are nothing but a distorter. I'm far from being a socialist. Ayn Rand, have you flipped your lid?? I doubt that you are "far far from being a socialist" given you reaction to Rand. I guess anyone who presents an argument you disagree with has "flipped"? What are you on about? "axioms of belief" ? Do you understand what an axiom is?
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1740

Posted 03/28/08 - 07:26 AM:	#47
Fried Egg Well, the thought experiment could be specified to agents representing people with entrepeneurial talent and inclinations and those who don't. In fact, the agents can represent an unlimited group of specific interests. It's not so much that the factory worker himself is ignorant of his self-interest but the agent, originally aware of the interests of those he is representing, no longer sees who he is voting for. The veil of ignorance is placed between the agent (who is not real but "basically" human) and the real people. Now, imagine if all these different agents representing specific interests would be asked, "would you accept your group to be only factory workers?" They will all say no, because they no longer know which specific interests they are voting for but they are aware of all the existing interests they might be representing. It will lead to the agents to choose for maximizing choice for jobs. In other words, they will choose for individual freedom.
_____________________ - How are you doing? - I'm doing good. _ No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661

Posted 03/28/08 - 08:01 AM:	#48
Benkei Now, imagine if all these different agents representing specific interests would be asked, "would you accept your group to be only factory workers?" They will all say no, because they no longer know which specific interests they are voting for but they are aware of all the existing interests they might be representing. Perhaps, but what if he were asked: "Should successful entrpeneurs be able to earn many times as much as a factory worker?" He might then, being aware of his own entrpeneurial inclinations and talents, vote "yes". Whereas another agent with poor entrepeurial skills and no ambition might well vote "no" because he wouldn't expect to be a successful entrepeneur.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 760

Posted 03/28/08 - 08:10 AM:	#49
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance Its only wiki, but it's a good intro to the OP{
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1740

Posted 03/28/08 - 08:44 AM:	#50
Perhaps, but what if he were asked: "Should successful entrpeneurs be able to earn many times as much as a factory worker?" He might then, being aware of his own entrpeneurial inclinations and talents, vote "yes". Whereas another agent with poor entrepeurial skills and no ambition might well vote "no" because he wouldn't expect to be a successful entrepeneur. Although I do not directly see a reason to bar a successful entrepeneur to earn many times more if I were an unsuccessful entrepeneur, please note that the agent is voting for his principals not himself and he is in fact dehumanised to a large extent. He is for instance immortal and has no interests of his own so that agents can represent future interests as well. It is in the tinkering with what the agent is that Rawls personal idea of fairness becomes clear. (Such as no undue burden on later generations). Put in another way, because every individual's agent has the same information and motivation as any other individual's agent it no longer is a negotiation between distinct individuals but a situation of choice. Rawls, only concludes two basic rules from this original position, that all fair societies should be based on freedom and equality of rights before the law. Nevertheless, original position thinking does enable us to look at certain specific questions from a different angle than "pure" self-interest but it is not intended to answer every specific questions as it clearly is not able to. For instance, the question, how many times more should the richest people be able to make than the poorest?, cannot be answered by this thought experiment, although it can give a direction of some thinking. For instance, I think litkey gave a good example of a society where 95% is rich and 5% poor and miserably so is less fair and less just than a society in which 100% is poor but not miserably so, e.g. comfortably poor. According at least to Rawls conclusions from the original position and the application of the difference principle. Of course, after the original position we start with the second part of his theory and that is his reflexive equilibrium, which everybody seems to be missing, and which actually encompasses and may modify the original position. Rawls was much more of a pragmatist than the dreamer and fantast he's made out for in these forums recently.
_____________________ - How are you doing? - I'm doing good. _ No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.