A Fair Society: Philosophy Forums

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 9 10 11 12 13 14 Last

A Fair Society

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 2026

Posted 03/27/08 - 07:59 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: 93
Total Posts: 2748

Posted 03/27/08 - 08:10 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: 93
Total Posts: 2748

Posted 03/27/08 - 08:14 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: 52
Total Posts: 2026

Posted 03/27/08 - 08:22 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: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 03/27/08 - 08:32 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: 52
Total Posts: 2026

Posted 03/27/08 - 08:33 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: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 03/27/08 - 08:38 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: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 03/27/08 - 08:40 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: 52
Total Posts: 2026

Posted 03/27/08 - 08:46 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: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 03/27/08 - 08:49 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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.