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

A Fair Society

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1757

Posted 04/04/08 - 07:17 AM:	#101
You might have missed this post with regard to the entire exercise of reflexive equilibrium. - We articulate the concept of justice which is widely accepted within a given community. - We so devise the veil of ignorance that it embodies this concept. - We consider what implications about concrete and specific matters of justice rational calculators standing in a trustee relation, and hence concerned to advance the eligible interests of their principles, would reach subject to the particular restrictions on their calculations represented by this veil of ignorance. - We compare these implications with individuals’ considered judgments of justice about these more concrete and specific issues. - Where there is divergence between implications and judgments, we consider whether individuals might be willing to alter their judgments to bring them into line with principles which, after all, already express their own more abstract views about the concept of justice. - If there is residual divergence, we modify the veil of ignorance to minimize this divergence. Rawls as a pragmatist would deny your position that you're a living God as not widely accepted within this given community (and not a concept of justice to begin with). However, in the Inca/Aztec (I forget which one) society that so worshiped Hernan Cortez such a concept would certainly be part of the original position. You are begining to grasp the problem here. Rawls is proposing an impartiality with respect to self-knowledge. That is a particular choice of impartiatlity. As I've pointed out previously, we might as well choose impartiallity (i.e. ignorance of) with respect to the laws of physics. If ignorance is the tool of impartiality then it can be wielded in many directions. The question is why did Rawls choose the one he did? Answer: it reflects his own personal prejudice against self-interest. He keeps self-interest but denueds it of its essence, self-knowledge like a virus overtaking the reproduction mechanism of a healthy cell. Rawls reason for insisting on impartiality is because impartiality is considered necessary for moral decisions. This is why we have arbitration by impartial arbitrators and judges cannot sit on cases in which they have an interest. And this impartiality can be wielded in many ways but it limited by the shared concept of justice of a community which comes about, precisely because of the type of discussions that we are having now. Without a shared idea of justice and/or fairness in a society no original position and no meaningful veil of ignorance is possible according to Rawls. Again, it is a political reading NOT an epistomological reading of Rawls' theory that he intended.
- 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.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 118

Posted 04/04/08 - 07:29 AM:	#102
cortes wrote: I am a living god. The safe bet is that you are still at high school...but no shame in that, just try taking a couple of courses in logic.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 04/04/08 - 08:06 AM:	#103
Benkei wrote: You might have missed this post with regard to the entire exercise of reflexive equilibrium. - We articulate the concept of justice which is widely accepted within a given community...Without a shared idea of justice and/or fairness in a society no original position and no meaningful veil of ignorance is possible according to Rawls. There is no "widely accepted" concept of justice. Certainly it is not widely accepted that ignorance of self-knowledge is just. Justice is "the proper ordering of things". But everyone has their own opinion on how things ought to be ordered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice In particular, Rawls is denying that acting knowlegably in one's self-interest can be just and moral. For his own prejudical reasons, he assumes that is not a matter of choice of the "community". Benkei wrote: Rawls reason for insisting on impartiality is because impartiality is considered necessary for moral decisions. No it isn't. If you are impartial to science you will believe, like the Aztecs, that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god. "Is considered"? Instead of appealing to popular belief, why don't you try making a logical argument for a change? This is simply Rawls prejudice. An assumption. A postulate. An axiom. Benkei wrote: This is why we have arbitration by impartial arbitrators and judges cannot sit on cases in which they have an interest. This presuposes a concept of law and a decision to be rendered under that law. It presuposes what facts are pertinent to the decision and and which are not. When a judge sits on a case he is charged with answer, for example, if person X committed murder. Murder is defined for him, all he is doing is fitting the facts to the law. He is not inventing the law. The judge is asked to be impartial to those facts that are not pertinent in rendering a judgement of the question at hand. But the precise law and question have to be in hand to determine which facts are pertinent and which are not. We do have a body of people who invent laws. They are called a legislature. They make choices based on what is most likely to get them reelected. And they are elected by voters who pick the candidate who will give them them most goodies. Now maybe you don't like that system, I have no love it of myself, but that is the proper analogy. Your analogy is fundamentally flawed. Edited by cortes on 04/04/08 - 08:28 AM
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: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 04/04/08 - 08:09 AM:	#104
Benkei wrote: So, the difference principle might require redistribution of wealth but not necessarily so, the theory can therefore not be considered socialist even if some solutions to unfair changes in society would be remedied through "typical" socialist mechanisms. There is no "might" about it. Rawls didn't just happen to stumble upon a model that delivers these results. There is no mystery here. . Clearly Rawls is infatuated with inventing a more equitable distribution through an "impartial" voting system. But my criticism of Rawls is not the outcome, I'm all for following logic where it leads. I am criticising his starting point. Morality through ignorance.
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: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 04/04/08 - 08:14 AM:	#105
Glypt wrote: No, its saying the question is puerile. Every breath you take is an act of opportunism and a denial of justice.
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: 1757

Posted 04/04/08 - 11:44 PM:	#106
But my criticism of Rawls is not the outcome, I'm all for following logic where it leads. I am criticising his starting point. Morality through ignorance. Wrong and wrong and wrong. Read Rawls because you don't even understand his starting point as your continuous wrongful assumptions show. Plenty of people here who have made an honest attempt at explaining it to you. Justice is "the proper ordering of things". But everyone has their own opinion on how things ought to be ordered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice Right, the self aligning of water is just. BS definition and the fact that you would use wikipedia to attempt to prove a point (again) is hilarious. Against your definition of justice I will simply state Rawls', since you are unable to actual come to any form of argumentation i don't really feel the urge to disprove what you are saying: Justice = Fairness. No it isn't. If you are impartial to science you will believe, like the Aztecs, that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god. This is not impartiality but ignorance. Again, people aren't unaware of self-interest or existing self-interest in Rawls' original position but the agents are unaware of the exact interests they are representing, having to take into account all possible interests they might be representing and then still vote in self-interest. There is no "might" about it. Rawls didn't just happen to stumble upon a model that delivers these results. There is no mystery here. . Clearly Rawls is infatuated with inventing a more equitable distribution through an "impartial" voting system. Are you having trouble reading what I wrote? The numbers clearly show that he is not concerned with redistribution of primary social goods per se, although that some developments in distribution of these goods might be considered unfair and should therefore not be promoted. Lowering taxes only for the rich is not "forbidden" under Rawls theory but lowering taxes for everyone is considered more fair and therefore better. Raising taxes to redistribute wealth to poorer classes MIGHT be fair but not necessarily so. You don't even know what the difference principle is, you don't know what reflexive equilibrium is and the result is you write rubbish all the time. This presuposes a concept of law and a decision to be rendered under that law. It presuposes what facts are pertinent to the decision and and which are not. It wasn't about law and it wasn't an analogy. It was an argument for impartiality and how this is accepted in society as a necessary condition for a moral choice (which a judgment is). You seem to have a lot of problem with distinguishing concepts properly or how law works to begin with (judges don't invent law? LMAO.)
- 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: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 04/05/08 - 07:08 AM:	#107
Benkei wrote: Right, the self aligning of water is just. BS definition and the fact that you would use wikipedia to attempt to prove a point (again) is hilarious. Against your definition of justice I will simply state Rawls', since you are unable to actual come to any form of argumentation i don't really feel the urge to disprove what you are saying: Justice = Fairness. It's not "my" definition. I pointed to Wikipedia to point it it is a common definition. If Rawls wants to define Justice in a partciular way, good for him. I do that also: Justice is when the world recognizes that I am a living god. As for "Justice = Fairness", "fairness" is an even vaguer term than "justice". Benkei wrote: This is not impartiality but ignorance. Again, people aren't unaware of self-interest or existing self-interest in Rawls' original position but the agents are unaware of the exact interests they are representing, having to take into account all possible interests they might be representing and then still vote in self-interest. That's called ignorance. In fact Rawls callis it the veil of ignorance. Rawls is indeed seeking morality through ignorance. Benkei wrote: Are you having trouble reading what I wrote? The numbers clearly show that he is not concerned with redistribution of primary social goods per se... He is clearly concerned wiht the redistribution of voting by his construction of the original condition. One can only assume he disapproves of the way that reality has constructed political institutions. And why does he disapprove of reality? Although all three of you dispute it, each of you has offered your own personal prejudicial opinion that there is something wrong with a world in which some have more than others. Glypt is the latest to show his hand in his new thread, Glypt wrote: With this in mind can someone explain to me why there are still people struggling to gain the basic needs of life while so many of us feel justified in buying a second or third car, a second home, private education for our children, etc...There are times when the libertarian right wing view truly disgust me. When the consumer waste appals me. Just more coincidence? Benkei wrote: It wasn't about law and it wasn't an analogy. It was an argument for impartiality and how this is accepted in society as a necessary condition for a moral choice (which a judgment is). You seem to have a lot of problem with distinguishing concepts properly or how law works to begin with (judges don't invent law? LMAO.) It's an argument for impartiality that rests on a false analogy. It is not "accepted in society" that moral choices can only come through ignorance of self knowledge. Let me offer just one single counterpoint: Rand. Will you claim that Objectivists accept that ignorance of self-knowledge is essential to moral choices? Beyond the the fact that the claim is false, the logic is also flawed. Even if evreyone agreed that 1+2=4 it doesn't make it so. Try forming an argument instead of relying on false claims of popular belief. Edited by cortes on 04/06/08 - 10:06 AM
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 158

Posted 04/06/08 - 12:40 AM:	#108
Benkei wrote: Rawls as a pragmatist would deny your position that you're a living God as not widely accepted within this given community (and not a concept of justice to begin with). However, in the Inca/Aztec (I forget which one) society that so worshiped Hernan Cortez such a concept would certainly be part of the original position. You must be mistaken or the difference principle would not follow from the OP. For example, parties in the original position might believe that there should be an absolute ruler because it is God's will. That is, the parties might choose an inequality for reasons other than that the inequality benefits the disadvantaged. It is essential that the OP abstracts away from any idiosycrasies particular to a given group. Otherwise, you're not assured of winding up with the sort of welfare state liberalism that Rawls favors.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 04/06/08 - 06:51 AM:	#109
7 wrote: You must be mistaken or the difference principle would not follow from the OP. For example, parties in the original position might believe that there should be an absolute ruler because it is God's will. That is, the parties might choose an inequality for reasons other than that the inequality benefits the disadvantaged. It is essential that the OP abstracts away from any idiosycrasies particular to a given group. Otherwise, you're not assured of winding up with the sort of welfare state liberalism that Rawls favors. Or to put it another way, if you control the knowledge, you control the outcome. By choosing what to abstract (take away) through a veil of ignorance you can lead the knowledge-denuded reasoner to any conclusion you prefer. (In my case I created a veil of ignorance about science so that when I turn on the tv and change the channels the reasoner belives, quite rationally, that I must be a living god, as the Aztecs did.) Ignorance is a powerful tool in the right hands. Rawls choice of ignorance tells us much about his own prejudices. Allow me to control what you don't know and you too will believe that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god and that ,in a just world, everyone would act on that belief! Edited by cortes on 04/06/08 - 07:04 AM
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 118

Posted 04/06/08 - 10:03 AM:	#110
cortes wrote: Glypt wrote: It wasn't about law and it wasn't an analogy. It was an argument for impartiality and how this is accepted in society as a necessary condition for a moral choice (which a judgment is). You seem to have a lot of problem with distinguishing concepts properly or how law works to begin with (judges don't invent law? LMAO.) Kindly desist from misquoting me.

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941

Posted 04/06/08 - 05:13 PM:	#111
cortes wrote: Or to put it another way, if you control the knowledge, you control the outcome. By choosing what to abstract (take away) through a veil of ignorance you can lead the knowledge-denuded reasoner to any conclusion you prefer. (In my case I created a veil of ignorance about science so that when I turn on the tv and change the channels the reasoner belives, quite rationally, that I must be a living god, as the Aztecs did.) Ignorance is a powerful tool in the right hands. Rawls choice of ignorance tells us much about his own prejudices. Allow me to control what you don't know and you too will believe that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god and that ,in a just world, everyone would act on that belief! But I am the unrealist, I do not live in your reality because it is an illusion. I question even my own reality. I do not believe my own eyes and ears. I do not believe you are a god. I do not believe anything. It does not matter what information you keep from me. It does not matter what ignorance you keep me in. I need no basis for my thinking, I follow my intuition. it is enough for me. Enough for me to think that all humans masquerading as gods are liars. And that you are one of them.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 04/06/08 - 07:41 PM:	#112
unrealist42 wrote: But I am the unrealist, I do not live in your reality because it is an illusion. I question even my own reality. I do not believe my own eyes and ears. I do not believe you are a god. It is an unjust world that you should not believe that I am a living god.
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: 1757

Posted 04/07/08 - 04:49 AM:	#113
7 wrote: You must be mistaken or the difference principle would not follow from the OP. For example, parties in the original position might believe that there should be an absolute ruler because it is God's will. That is, the parties might choose an inequality for reasons other than that the inequality benefits the disadvantaged. It is essential that the OP abstracts away from any idiosycrasies particular to a given group. Otherwise, you're not assured of winding up with the sort of welfare state liberalism that Rawls favors. 7, how so? Rawls would reject the idea of Hernan Cortez being a living God at the stage of formulating the shared principles of justice before actually framing the original position. Rawls himself states that there is NO possibility of framing an original position without such shared principles of justice. Rawls' theory of reflective equilibrium does not favour a welfare state liberalism, it only favours such a society, according to Rawls, in case of more or less Western societies with a certain shared sense of justice. Cortes: Let me offer just one single counterpoint: Rand. Will you claim that Objectivists accept that ignorance of self-knowledge is essential to moral choices? Sigh. IMPARTIALITY IS ESSENTIAL FOR MORAL CHOICES. The Veil of Ignorance is a TOOL within the wider theory to enable such IMPARTIALITY. Learn to read for once what people SAY instead of what you want them to say so it fits in your pretty little categories. And I really don't care what that pseudo-philosopher Rand has to say about anything. Objectivism is an incoherent garble of nonsense that's impossible to detangle. I'll ask 180proof, our resident cult deprogrammer to schedule a meeting with you if you believe yourself to be an objectivist.
- 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: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 04/07/08 - 05:36 AM:	#114
Benkei wrote: IMPARTIALITY IS ESSENTIAL FOR MORAL CHOICES. Sigh. This is the unproven assumption to which I have been pointing. I understand that you believe this to be true. But you have not proven it to be true. Benkei wrote: And I really don't care what that pseudo-philosopher Rand has to say about anything. Objectivism is an incoherent garble of nonsense that's impossible to detangle. It doesn't matter whether you like Rand's philosophy or not. Objectivists are an existence proof that not everyone believes shares your belief that impartiality is essential to moral choices (setting aside my earlier point that popularity of belief does not prove anything). Rawls prejudice is his belief that impartiality is essential for moral choices. Edited by cortes on 04/07/08 - 05:50 AM
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: 1757

Posted 04/07/08 - 06:12 AM:	#115
Which prejudice is shared by and large in society as proven by the way we deal with law and arbitration in everyday life - an accepted principle of justice not "just" popular belief as numerous works on legal theory have affirmed it. For the purposes of Rawls' theory that is ALREADY sufficient as it is the result of the political-ethico discourse in, at least, Dutch society. This shared "prejudice" (I would say principle or at the very least time-proven concept) is necessary for the shared sense of justice on which we build the original position as explained in A Theory on Justice by Rawls, all of which you can READ by yourself but probably would still fail to understand due to sheer unwillingness to understand that which you do not agree with. You said you love nothing more than to follow things through logically... but so far you only distort the simplest of statements so that you can disagree endlessly. And I can prove impartiality is essential for certain moral choices but I don't even have to because it's not the point of this thread. Nevertheless, here's some nice reading material for you to peruse and again not learn anything: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impartiality/ by Troy Jollimore It's not a matter of me liking Rand's philosophy it's a matter of Objectivism (has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?) is not a philosophy to begin with. Objectivists are only proof of man's inherent irrationality, which, if I would give in to me Hitleresque motivations, should be stamped out of existence. As a matter of fact, the whole damn cult would die out in short time if only they WOULD practice what they preach. Unfortunately for us, they are not only irrational but also inconsistent.
- 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.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 51
Total Posts: 826

Posted 04/07/08 - 06:24 AM:	#116
cortes wrote: But my criticism of Rawls is not the outcome, I'm all for following logic where it leads. I am criticising his starting point. Morality through ignorance. This is skewed gibberish. Rawls "starting point" is where Ignorance ends, not where ignorance begins. He is illustrating that prejudice (Ignorance) causes people to sometimes act in selfish, harmful (to themselves also), and destructive ways. Examining the contingencies - sex,race,religion (for example)- then makes it possible and plausable to have moral arguments, or a moral stance. Your "might= right" is simply false, and ridiculous.
Going to trial with a lawyer who considers your whole life-style a Crime in Progress is not a happy prospect. -Hunter S T The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 04/07/08 - 07:07 AM:	#117
Benkei wrote: Which prejudice is shared by and large in society as proven by the way we deal with law and arbitration in everyday life... We already discussed that false analogy. Arbitrators don't invent law, they apply it. They begin their exercise knowing sorts of facts are relevant to the decision that they are asked to make. Benkei wrote: - an accepted principle of justice not "just" popular belief as numerous works on legal theory have affirmed it. Again, Objectists, at a minimum, do not "accept" this principle of justice. Benkei wrote: And I can prove impartiality is essential for certain moral choices but I don't even have to because it's not the point of this thread. No, it merely underlies the assumptions that Rawlsians bring to it. Never mind supporting your argument. Benkei wrote: Objectivists are only proof of man's inherent irrationality, which, if I would give in to me Hitleresque motivations, should be stamped out of existence. As a matter of fact, the whole damn cult would die out in short time if only they WOULD practice what they preach. Unfortunately for us, they are not only irrational but also inconsistent. And yet, there they are messing up your "accepted" concensus. In fact, there are probably many more times Objectivists than Rawslians.
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: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 04/07/08 - 07:13 AM:	#118
litkey wrote: Rawls "starting point" is where Ignorance ends, not where ignorance begins. He is illustrating that prejudice (Ignorance) causes people to sometimes act in selfish, harmful (to themselves also), and destructive ways. Examining the contingencies - sex,race,religion (for example)- then makes it possible and plausable to have moral arguments, or a moral stance. Your "might= right" is simply false, and ridiculous. I don't know why you insist on reproducing previously refuted claims. I know I've corrected you three or four times on your "might=right" claim. Why do you cling to it so dearly? And we previously discussed the virtue of selfishness but perhaps we need to bring that up again? It is not ignorance that causes selfishness but self knowledge.The fact is that Rawls introduces ignorance into moral discourse to solve what he perceives to be a problem of selfishness. Rawls prejudice against selfishness underlies his entire philosophical enterprise.
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: 1757

Posted 04/07/08 - 07:40 AM:	#119
We already discussed that false analogy. Arbitrators don't invent law, they apply it. They begin their exercise knowing sorts of facts are relevant to the decision that they are asked to make. Cortes, are you dyslexic? I mean, seriously? The point was that arbitration tribunals and judges and the procedures surrounding it are created in such a way as to ensure impartiality. Many rules of procedural law attempt to eliminate bias from the proceedings and the judgment itself. Examples are appointment of judges in continental Europe, prohibition of use of illegaly obtained evidence such as entrapment (for instance). etc. etc. This shows that Western society by and large considers impartiality as necessary for moral choices. Now, you can go on and "not accept" this reality of the legal system but it doesn't change the shared nature of the principle in society, which is sufficient to start with building an original position that includes this principle. Sufficient, that is within Rawls theory but since you've never read him (you probably got stuck masturbating over Atlas Shrugged).
- 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: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 04/07/08 - 07:55 AM:	#120
Benkei wrote: The point was that arbitration tribunals and judges and the procedures surrounding it are created in such a way as to ensure impartiality. Many rules of procedural law attempt to eliminate bias from the proceedings and the judgment itself. We covered this before but I guess we have to go over it again. Arbitration tribunals and judges do not invent the law. They are given the law and told to apply it. With the given law it is known beforehand which facts are relevant to an application of the law and which are not. Therefore they are instituted in such as was as not to be prejudicial to the decision by including facts that are not pertinent to the application of the law. That is not how laws are invented. Laws are invented by very partial legislators who are elected by very partial voters who are all very acutely aware of their own self interests. Treating Rawlsian theory like an arbitration tribunal is equivalent to taking as given that self knowledge is not pertinent to moral choice, i.e. that impartialitiy is necessary for moral choice. In other words, once again, we see that the claim is an assumption, not something arrived at through reason. I know you have it firmly embedded in your noggin that impartialitiy is necessary for moral choice but that does not make it a fact of reality. But we do have a political model that consists of unelected people passing laws for "the good of everyone". We call that a dictatorship.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 118

Posted 04/07/08 - 08:35 AM:	#121
Just to confirm the previous important points (Benkei, Litkey) and to stress again the moral subject being distinguished and subsequently addressed in Rawls's theory is "the basic structure"... that includes juridical systems and tribunals. "While a political conception of justice is, of course, a moral conception, it is a moral conception worked out for a specific kind of subject, namely, for political, social, and economic institutions." (John Rawls, Just as Fairness, Political not Metaphysical) Edited by Glypt on 04/07/08 - 08:50 AM

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1364

Posted 04/07/08 - 09:30 AM:	#122
Glypt wrote: Just to confirm the previous important points (Benkei, Litkey) and to stress again the moral subject being distinguished and subsequently addressed in Rawls's theory is "the basic structure"... that includes juridical systems and tribunals. "While a political conception of justice is, of course, a moral conception, it is a moral conception worked out for a specific kind of subject, namely, for political, social, and economic institutions." (John Rawls, Just as Fairness, Political not Metaphysical) Which makes it all the more curious that Benkei would use the structure of judicial systems and tribunals in order to justify a mechanism for determining the proper structure of judicial systems and tribunals. That's what we call a circular argument.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 118

Posted 04/07/08 - 11:20 AM:	#123
[quote=Benkei] Cortes, are you dyslexic? I mean, seriously? quote] He certainly has a problem with English comprehension. Edited by Glypt on 04/07/08 - 11:24 AM

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1757

Posted 04/08/08 - 02:17 AM:	#124
Cortes, I do not treat Rawlsian theory as an arbitrational tribunal. That's your interpretation. Rawls is concerned with moral choices at the original position. The general concept of moral choices as shared in Western society is that impartiality is necessary as proven by how we regulate tribunals and arbitrations which are concerned with the "ultimate" form of a moral choice, namely, a binding decision. Rawls is not concerned with proof of impartiality as being necessary for a moral choice only with the political-ethico validation of the principle in a given society. If this validation is present, it is sufficient to include it in the wider concept of justice. Tradition, our legal system and philosophical musings on the subject show this validation exists. Now, if you want to go into a discussion about moral impartiality being necessary for moral choices, open a new thread. And before you do, read the Stanford Encyclopedia link, which already soundly reasons why it is necessary, although there is plenty of discussion as to HOW to reach this impartiality (of which Rawls' veil of ignorance is but one example). And also, judges and arbitration tribunals do invent law, they're called precedents. But please, don't let my 15 years of experience in law stand in the way of you thinking I don't know what I am talking about. Moreover, Derrida has firmly shown that even a "simple" judgment is an invention of the law. As far as philosophy not only certifies the correspondence between the subjectivity and objectivity but also concerns what lies beyond our frame of thought, it is required to treat objects or texts in its otherness -even if it is only transiently possible- and Derrida’s works can be seen the theoretical refinement of this. That is not how laws are invented. Laws are invented by very partial legislators who are elected by very partial voters who are all very acutely aware of their own self interests. Funnily enough these partial people are also very partial about being impartial and through debate, looking at it from different perspectives, through altruistic motives, through empathy, through tradition, through law principles such as non-discrimination, universality, political tradition etc. the system as a whole does a pretty good job at eliminating their political-ethico biases, resulting in just and fair laws. In other words, once again, we see that the claim is an assumption, not something arrived at through reason. I'm certain that most people in society ASSUME that impartiality (I don't but will not go into the discussion about that here as I stated before that it is not necessary to argue Rawls theory) is necessary for a moral decision but it's not relevant for Rawls' theory. Why people think something is just or fair is far less interesting than the fact that they do believe it, regardless of whether it is a reasoned belief or not. Just as it would be sufficient to include Hernan Cortez is a living God as a principle of justice for Aztecs during that time (which is also unreasoned and an assumption but a firm belief about justice) it is sufficient that this principle exists in society as continuously expounded in law, the political arena, everyday opinion etc. It's about overlapping consensus of the main substantive ethico-political doctrines current in a community. If such overlapping consensus cannot be found then an original position is not possible as Rawls states himself.
- 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.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 51
Total Posts: 826

Posted 04/08/08 - 03:26 AM:	#125
cortes wrote: I don't know why you insist on reproducing previously refuted claims. I know I've corrected you three or four times on your "might=right" claim. Why do you cling to it so dearly? Look, there isn't anything special in labelling someone a socialist; if you are going to do so, then I think you should define some words. Your "might=right" was in reference to your opinion that: i-Determinism is false ii- An Individuals desire trumps any rights claim. Thus "Might=Right" ...are you now repenting? although, I think you must be retarded to think determinism is false. You could take a soft-determinism position, although you would still deny the contingency of birth. Did you choose to be born in X country? To be born into X family? The Die was cast a long time ago. Go Ayn Rand. And we previously discussed the virtue of selfishness but perhaps we need to bring that up again? Well, why don't you start a new thread on "selfishness" then we can see where the facts lyeth?
Going to trial with a lawyer who considers your whole life-style a Crime in Progress is not a happy prospect. -Hunter S T The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.