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

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 04/21/08 - 02:29 AM:	#151
Makarismos wrote: Ok, I rather thought you were just typing words to fill space, and surely this shows it clearly. Thank you for that. Makarismos wrote: It seems to me that Rawls cannot use his theoretical framework to describe a way of finding what is just or fair, unless we already know what is just and fair. In order for a society, (ie containing different opinions as to what is a good way to live) to validate what constitutes justice-as-fairness, a political theory must accommodate such pluralistic views (where they do not deny legitimate autonomy assumed in liberalism), the citizens of that society must be allowed equal political opportunity to test their claims as to the good within juridical procedures. If you question that assumption then I would invite you to consider the counterfactual proposition and make your case accordingly. Makarismos wrote: He advocates pluralaty, and therefore liberalism - but only because these allow freedom of expression and action. Perhaps not even because of these things: Rawls theory is neutral after all, so presumably does not require us to do anything. According to you he only insists on plurality because it is ipso-facto fair - but you give no reasons for this fairness. Rawls has given so many reasons, some of which I and others have reported throughout these conferences, that the fact you deny this makes me question your seriousness. Rawls devised PL because plurality will already exist as a condition of modern liberal societies. In other words PL is unnecessary in non liberal societies because such societies do not admit plurality. As it happens the conditions of plurality help to protect society from human fallibility and requires us to admit different opinions where they do not prevent expressions of political freedom - the opportunities to engage in public reason and test our complaints within juridical arbitration. Makarismos wrote: My question to you is this:- Is it unfair to force a Rawlsian inspired liberal democracy upon a monarchical society?. For the purposes of this thought experiment, let us assume that the majority of the population worship the leader (perhaps it is Cortes!?) and do not themselves favour a democratic, or liberal state. From what you have said so far, It would follow that you agree that forcing the population to comply with an undesired path would not be fair - but I suspect that you would still want to force the population to conform to a liberal democracy, due to such a governments essential fairness? Your thoughts? It is unreasonable to cite a comprehensively doctrinal regime as a relevant thought experiment, when the typology of liberalism and Rawlsian theory placed within it, has been stated repeatedly to be at issue in these conferences and confirmed by direct quotations from the author in question. Rawls makes the point that outcomes from entirely sociological discourse regarding 'the good' runs the risk of exposure to the endemic prejudices of a society, for example when racist misconceptions are sociologically immanent. Rawls might ask us to consider the time when the slave trade was once 'acceptable'... "Some think that no constitution excluding slavery could have been adopted at that time, so is that knowledge relevant?" (Rawls, PL, 398). Thus Rawls doubts that procedures without substantive political principles to regulate allowable reasons can prevent the risk of "the maxim garbage in, garbage out"(Rawls, PL, 430-431). The only way to cancel this maxim is to assume a refining motivation centred upon what we value for us as politically equal individuals and so both discursive democracy and political liberalism must impose certain primary goods. For Rawls this leads to proposing an initial device of hypothetical representation to achieve some objectivity as indeed would appear to feature in Habermasian impositional conjecture of an 'ideal speech situation'. I'll attempt a final repetition, after which I suggest you go and read Rawls's works (There are plenty of better ways to challenge his theories but you have to understand his theory first, which you clearly do not, or choose not, to admit): RAWLS'S THEORY IS CALLED POLITICAL LIBERALISM IT IS PART OF A TYPOLOGY OF LIBERAL THEORY…AS SUCH, IT ASSUMES A LIBERAL AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. WITH THIS PRIOR ASSUMPTION IT IS PUERILE TO POSIT A COMPREHENSIVELY IDEOLOGICAL PREMISE (BY DEFINITION NOT PROCEDURALLY LEGITIMATE) AND COMPLAIN THAT PL DOESN'T COHERE WITHIN IT. IF YOU YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN EITHER A LIBERAL OR DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL MODEL THEN THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT YOU WILL NOT AGREE. THAT HOWEVER IS NOT AN AFFECTIVE PHILOSOPHICAL CHALLENGE, MERELY AN OPINIONATED ONE. I must repeat that although I'm interested in making sure Rawls's work is not misrepresented on these forums, it does not follow, as I've previously remarked, that I believe his views are unassailable. However, there is no point in explaining the challenges that other philosophers have brought to bear in order to open a coherent argument while Rawls's theory is continually misrepresented on these forums.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 51
Total Posts: 831

Posted 04/21/08 - 02:57 AM:	#152
cortes I'd like to sugget a starker, clearer contrast: 1) People ought to pursue a (somehow) shared goal of fairness and justice and let individuals find their place within this 2) People ought to pursue their own individual values and work out their differences as necessary [/quote wrote: My (2) includes your (2) though people pursuing their own values might just as easiliy give everything to charity. My (1) includes both traditional socialism and the Rawlsian variety. Now the important thing to note is that people will not agree on these. Some will advocate (1) and others, like me, (2). But what is most interesting about (2) is that it doesn't require any agreement beforehand as does (1). I can follow (2) all by myself and deal with those who follow (1) as a necessary working out of differences along the way. In fact, we might say that pretty much everyone is following (2) but that there are some, such as Marx and Rawls who want people to switch to (1). You could say that even they are following (2) in trying to get people to switch to (1) though they would never admit it. this is nonsense, there is a dark hole in your number 1 - as we cannot tell what "1" means - what does it mean for people to follow a shared value? Well, I might just like to go shooting, but others may prefer to shoot animals, and some to shoot humans - but we all have the shared value...arguably. Of course, when speaking of individuals, we naturally co-operate- and sometimes do so against our own feelings. For example, I might want to throw a cake into the face of my fellow colleague because she keeps coughing, but where would that get me...a promotion? You are speaking of a vague system of fairness, but ignoring the real idea that people want fairness...or "fairness" (if you prefer). again, we are harkened back to Rawls - if we ask people "do you want fairness?" Of course it is an oblique thing to ask, however if we pad it out, and give it the context - many will say "of course I want fairness!" We all recognize when something is fair, and the converse to this: this is why we act to bring propriety, order, and justice. anything else, is just out of the park.
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 04/21/08 - 07:59 AM:	#153
litkey wrote: this is nonsense, there is a dark hole in your number 1 - as we cannot tell what "1" means - what does it mean for people to follow a shared value? Well, I might just like to go shooting, but others may prefer to shoot animals, and some to shoot humans - but we all have the shared value...arguably. These are general satements to illuminate a contrast. You can insert whatever you wish as the shared "proper order of the world" in (1) and the contrast with (2) will still hold. litkey wrote: You are speaking of a vague system of fairness, but ignoring the real idea that people want fairness...or "fairness" (if you prefer). again, we are harkened back to Rawls - if we ask people "do you want fairness?" Of course it is an oblique thing to ask, however if we pad it out, and give it the context - many will say "of course I want fairness!" People want all sorts of things. This was never our disagreement. I want fairness too: a fair world is one in which I am worshiped as a living god. Indeed, much of what makes politics interesting is the clash of ideals of fairness. In some casees such differences can only be resolved through war. litkey wrote: We all recognize when something is fair, and the converse to this: this is why we act to bring propriety, order, and justice. anything else, is just out of the park. However, not everyone puts fairness, however they might define it, at the top of their priorities. In fact, as a general rule, people spend a tiny faction of their time promoting fairness and the vast majority of their time pursuing their own values and working out their differences with other people. Indeed, it is far more pragmatic to regard Marx and Rawls as two more jokers pursuing their own (socialist) values. In any case, clearly you are subscriber to (1) and I am a subscriber to (2) and there is a very bright and clear difference between us that these statements illuminate.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 649

Posted 04/21/08 - 10:54 AM:	#154
Thanky you Glypt, you finally answered my question - and you will be glad to know that you have chalenged a view of Rawls held by people even in this thread. You say:- Glypt wrote: It is unreasonable to cite a comprehensively doctrinal regime as a relevant thought experiment, when the typology of liberalism and Rawlsian theory placed within it, has been stated repeatedly to be at issue in these conferences and confirmed by direct quotations from the author in question. You might believe that Rawl's is fully understood by politicians, social critics, and "philosophers", but I would argue that many so called experts believe that he has shown a way of validating our own liberal democracy. They believe that he has proven our own system's legitimacy. Now you have cleared this up, I don’t really have a dispute with you: I apologise for replying harshly to your previous statements, but you seemed to be avoiding the issue. In order for a society, (ie containing different opinions as to what is a good way to live) to validate what constitutes justice-as-fairness, a political theory must accommodate such pluralistic views (where they do not deny legitimate autonomy assumed in liberalism), the citizens of that society must be allowed equal political opportunity to test their claims as to the good within juridical procedures. If you question that assumption then I would invite you to consider the counterfactual proposition and make your case accordingly. Do you speak like this to everyone? Your writing is very dense, very technical. I praise your use of language, but admit my own failings in interpreting what you have to say upon occasion. I guess that you are saying something like this: Makafish wrote: In order for liberal democracy to find what constitutes justice-as-fairness, it must adopt a political theory which can accommodate pluralistic views. This theory must not deny the legitimate autonomy assumed in liberalism; otherwise the society would not be a liberal democracy. The citizens of that society must be allowed equal political opportunity to test their claims for the good within judicial procedures, and in line with the same unifying political theory. I must assume that the assumption you refer to is the necessity of adopting a political theory which can accommodate pluralistic views. Given the context of a liberal democracy, this seems a fair assumption. If you meant something different, you might want to try rephrasing your statement so that it is clear: future generations will thank us all greatly if we speak in a clear precise way. Rawls has given so many reasons, some of which I and others have reported throughout these conferences, that the fact you deny this makes me question your seriousness. Rawls devised PL because plurality will already exist as a condition of modern liberal societies. In other words PL is unnecessary in non liberal societies because such societies do not admit plurality. If we assume that his works are to only be understood from within a liberal democracy, then yes he has. I was merely pointing out that not everyone exists within a liberal democracy: As you state in fact. As it happens the conditions of plurality help to protect society from human fallibility and requires us to admit different opinions where they do not prevent expressions of political freedom - the opportunities to engage in public reason and test our complaints within juridical arbitration. Rawls makes the point that outcomes from entirely sociological discourse regarding 'the good' runs the risk of exposure to the endemic prejudices of a society, for example when racist misconceptions are sociologically immanent. Rawls might ask us to consider the time when the slave trade was once 'acceptable'... "Some think that no constitution excluding slavery could have been adopted at that time, so is that knowledge relevant?" (Rawls, PL, 398). Thus Rawls doubts that procedures without substantive political principles to regulate allowable reasons can prevent the risk of "the maxim garbage in, garbage out"(Rawls, PL, 430-431). The only way to cancel this maxim is to assume a refining motivation centred upon what we value for us as politically equal individuals and so both discursive democracy and political liberalism must impose certain primary goods. For Rawls this leads to proposing an initial device of hypothetical representation to achieve some objectivity as indeed would appear to feature in Habermasian impositional conjecture of an 'ideal speech situation'. I'll attempt a final repetition, after which I suggest you go and read Rawls's works (There are plenty of better ways to challenge his theories but you have to understand his theory first, which you clearly do not, or choose not, to admit): RAWLS'S THEORY IS CALLED POLITICAL LIBERALISM IT IS PART OF A TYPOLOGY OF LIBERAL THEORY…AS SUCH, IT ASSUMES A LIBERAL AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. WITH THIS PRIOR ASSUMPTION IT IS PUERILE TO POSIT A COMPREHENSIVELY IDEOLOGICAL PREMISE (BY DEFINITION NOT PROCEDURALLY LEGITIMATE) AND COMPLAIN THAT PL DOESN'T COHERE WITHIN IT. IF YOU YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN EITHER A LIBERAL OR DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL MODEL THEN THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT YOU WILL NOT AGREE. THAT HOWEVER IS NOT AN AFFECTIVE PHILOSOPHICAL CHALLENGE, MERELY AN OPINIONATED ONE. I must repeat that although I'm interested in making sure Rawls's work is not misrepresented on these forums, it does not follow, as I've previously remarked, that I believe his views are unassailable. However, there is no point in explaining the challenges that other philosophers have brought to bear in order to open a coherent argument while Rawls's theory is continually misrepresented on these forums. You realise that typing in capitals makes your already dense text harder to read by humans, especially dyslexic people, for example? Perhaps before you start to argue with such venom, you might try to explain your position is something other than Latin, especially if your goal is to spread a more precise understanding of Rawls ideas, and to clear up misconceptions. It seems that, by speaking only in the most technical language, refusing to explain your dense points, and then calling all who disagree uneducated: you achieve only your own glorification, and boost your own ego. I realise that for one to gain such an overburdened lexicon you must have studied for many hours, spoken largely with others who have done the same, and in the process become unaware of the technicality and density your own words meaning; so please take no offence from what I say. Merely remember you are in a tiny minority, and if your goal is to promote understanding, you should remember how you spoke before you began your studies.

freeyourdome
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 04/21/08 - 12:29 PM:	#155
Society should be as fair as possible while being able to maximize the production of the powerful. This is somewhat like what Singer says in his thesis where he states that people should give up what they can to people in need without sacrificing something of similar moral importance. Basically as long as the active man isn't being inhibited in his ability to do what he does best, things should be as fair as possible. Basically if the superior men always went about providing for the less superior, things would be quite fair. The problem though lies with the fact that if this were to happen, the active man wouldn't be able to make improvements in society that he would otherwise. In the end this is why the best society is one that has as much fairness as possible without inhibiting the progression of the active man.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 04/21/08 - 01:44 PM:	#156
Makarismos wrote: I apologise for replying harshly to your previous statements, but you seemed to be avoiding the issue. To be precise you felt you have replied harshly…please note I've not stated any such assumption so there is no need for an apology. Further more, whether you are being harsh, or not, doesn't interest me. I write off rhetoric as rhetoric. You are justifying your reply because it appears, to you, that I was avoiding 'the issue' …Please notes that as far as I'm concerned there is no 'issue' of any importance because what it comes down to is the fact that you were making claims about a political theorist whom you have not even attempted to read. Makarismos wrote: Do you speak like this to everyone? Well it largely depends upon what I've got to say. It is not easy relating something like over 500 pages of text using 'ordinary' language…whatever that might be understood as being. I would suggest that my locution is in keeping with the complex nature of the topic and therefore 'normal'. More importantly, attempts at a more casual approach will ultimately cloud the issue. I would add, Rawls chose the words that he did for very good reasons, as you might expect. Words have very particular purposes according to each context that is given. Concepts are built and understood in the context of an entire book…I'm not about to indulge in casual rhetoric if I can help it. As it is, I have to leave out so much of Rawls's argument, which allows a lazy critique to occupy the vacuum left by such a necessity. Makarismos wrote: … you might want to try rephrasing your statement so that it is clear I would say to you, I have a duty to be as technical as is within my ability, because the discipline summarising complex philosophical positions demand at least that amount of our respect. Rawls's A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism are each about 500 pages in length and his Law of Peoples is several hundred pages also…I'm not going to diminish or compromise the significance of his argument more than I must. To do that would be counter-productive because it would cloud and not clear 'the issue', as you would have it. Makarismos wrote: If we assume that his works are to only be understood from within a liberal democracy, then yes he has. I was merely pointing out that not everyone exists within a liberal democracy: As you state in fact. If you have followed the threads in these conferences you will note how many different ways these things have already been said by others and myself in many different ways. It is no wonder some us return to technicality. Makarismos wrote: You realise that typing in capitals makes your already dense text harder to read by humans, especially dyslexic people, for example? No, I didn't know that, thank you for educating me in that regard. However, I would imagine the fact that I used capital letters might signify as much, unless you are now accusing me of 'having it in for' dislexic people, which I'm confident you wouldn't consider. Makarismos wrote: Perhaps before you start to argue with such venom, you might try to explain your position is something other than Latin, especially if your goal is to spread a more precise understanding of Rawls ideas, and to clear up misconceptions. It seems that, by speaking only in the most technical language, refusing to explain your dense points, and then calling all who disagree uneducated: you achieve only your own glorification, and boost your own ego. Perhaps, your casting my words as venomous does not amount to an objective opinion. The Internet is notorious for people falling foul of their own imaginings. It might just be that my locution doesn't reflect your own perlocutionary designs. We will never know. What I do know is that I'm not about to be lectured by you in this regard for the reasons I've already given. I do not know what you mean about using 'something other than Latin'. Makarismos wrote: I realise that for one to gain such an overburdened lexicon you must have studied for many hours, spoken largely with others who have done the same, and in the process become unaware of the technicality and density your own words meaning; so please take no offence from what I say. Merely remember you are in a tiny minority, and if your goal is to promote understanding, you should remember how you spoke before you began your studies. I do not take offense with regard to what you might 'say' to me, thus far, because I do not believe it to be a true description of the state of affairs. However, I would feel offended for others who you would have limited by your standards of debate. I merely find your assumptions somewhat tiresome and inappropriate to this kind of discussion. You have presumed to give me some uncalled for advice, for which I thank you never-the-less. I will not give you further advice...I would have no idea how technically or crudely to encapsulate my meaning.

rakis
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 66

Posted 04/21/08 - 02:19 PM:	#157
Glypt, I think in a democracy a la Rawls , becomes acceptable the individual property and is proposed the benefit of a minimum of goods for those who are unable to acquire it. But why these people do not achieve to have this minimum of goods? Is it because they are a priori incompetent? It is obvious that the particular model of democracy faces the current capitalistic democratic model as the better possible. What is more ideal than a totality of autonomous entities that discusses, consents and legislates!!! Tous freres tous amis! Habermas has the same opinion. He suggests an “unbiased, objective” dialogue among autonomous agents. No room for class struggle. The dominance of such an ideology does not think if in representative democracy citizens have political actions for real! Not even if the right to choose your job means acceptance of exploitation!

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 649

Posted 04/21/08 - 02:22 PM:	#158
I would still maintain, if a point cannot be conveyed to the layman, then it is not truly understood. I would maintain also, that typing in capitals is commonly held for shouting on the internet, and this is why I believed you were vexed - my apologies once more for so misinterpreting you. It seems you don’t want to talk to anyone who has not versed themselves in your favourite philosopher, so I will come back once I have managed to read some more. I'm sure you will be unimpressed by any of the secondary works I have read, and will no doubt heap scorn on one so uneducated as myself attempting to comment upon poor misunderstood Rawls. It seems in fact that I am so ignorant, I cannot even frame a coherent question regarding the chap. Have fun with all your answers Glypt, it looks like you will be holding on to them for now, though watch this space. Cheers

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 04/22/08 - 04:25 AM:	#159
Makarismos wrote: I would still maintain, if a point cannot be conveyed to the layman, then it is not truly understood. Well I would have to agree, but I'm not sure how significant the point becomes. If a letter isn't delivered I cannot read it. If you don't put the phone to your ear you won't hear the conversation... Makarismos wrote: I would maintain also, that typing in capitals is commonly held for shouting on the internet, and this is why I believed you were vexed - my apologies once more for so misinterpreting you. Have it your own way then. However… I'm not entirely sure about connecting vexation exclusively with shouting, the one need not follow from the other. There are all kinds of intentions behind the act of 'raising ones voice', for example to draw attention to a significant content. With regard to being vexed some people shout and others sulk. For all I know it might be you that feels vexed at this moment. It seems to me at least possible, that you are habitually drawing such equivocal conclusions, however, be assured there is no need for apologies. Makarismos wrote: It seems you don’t want to talk to anyone who has not versed themselves in your favourite philosopher, Your unsupported insights have let you down again…perhaps because they are unsupportable. I will save you the trouble of further guesswork. Although I'm still unsure as to what all this has got to do with anything non-trivial. I do not have a favourite philosopher and I'm happy to talk with people not versed in philosophy, I do it every day. Makarismos wrote: …so I will come back once I have managed to read some more. I'm sure you will be unimpressed by any of the secondary works I have read, and will no doubt heap scorn on one so uneducated as myself attempting to comment upon poor misunderstood Rawls. It is clear that you believe to possess amazing powers of personal insight. You claim to know what impresses me. You predict on what occasion and to whom I will be scornful. Rawls is more likely to be understood by people who read his work, I think that is not unreasonable. However, I'm not sure that if you read his ideas with the same apparent lack of personal detachment you exhibit in reading my attempts at communicating, that you will derive much from his arguments. Makarismos wrote: It seems in fact that I am so ignorant, I cannot even frame a coherent question regarding the chap. Have fun with all your answers Glypt, it looks like you will be holding on to them for now, though watch this space. If you truly felt that you were ignorant then it would be more likely that you could frame a question, the coherence of which would satisfy you. It is your assumption to know something, rather than your lack of concern that you don't know, that corrupts your questions IMHO. You leap far too quickly to conclusions IMHO. It is the unsupportable assertions about people you make, of whom you have but sparse information that distorts your thinking IMHO. All these fallibilities we share as humans to a greater or lesser extent, the trick is to be aware of them as much as possible, especially in philosophy, IMHO. My advise to you would be use your intuitions but bare in mind that you may be wrong. Qualifying the doubts we have when structuring a philosophical point uses a lot of extra sentences, this leads to the necessity of technical terms for space-saving as well as semantic precision. As I said before, Rawls's theory is not unassailable, secondary reading can play its part, but at some stage or other one would have to check the claims of secondary commentaries by reading the primary text or as close as any language barriers permit. Not everyone speaks German, for example, so many rely upon Anscombe's translations when reading Wittgenstein. Good luck Makarismos!

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 04/22/08 - 04:58 AM:	#160
rakis wrote: Glypt, I think in a democracy a la Rawls , becomes acceptable the individual property and is proposed the benefit of a minimum of goods for those who are unable to acquire it. But why these people do not achieve to have this minimum of goods? Is it because they are a priori incompetent? It is obvious that the particular model of democracy faces the current capitalistic democratic model as the better possible. What is more ideal than a totality of autonomous entities that discusses, consents and legislates!!! Tous freres tous amis! Habermas has the same opinion. He suggests an “unbiased, objective” dialogue among autonomous agents. No room for class struggle. The dominance of such an ideology does not think if in representative democracy citizens have political actions for real! Not even if the right to choose your job means acceptance of exploitation! Yes, as previously mentioned Rawls and Habermas differ, while sharing a liberal family resemblance and recognising the cooriginality of private and public will, in that legimacy for Rawls starts from fundamentally deontologically/monological deliberation, while for Habermas legimacy is dialogical/discursive. Rawls theory relies heavily upon Kant, while Habermas also uses Hegel, Frege, and others. While Rawls is concerned with transcendent principles of justice in political theory, Habermas's theory regards immanent theories of "communicative action" in the "Lifeworld"/ the many pan-sociological discourses and events towards the 'best arguments' for justice that entail facticity and validity in society. Discursive democrats such as Dryzek is required to open up better channels of representation of activist rhetoric that counter the 'gentleman's club' politics in recognition of the 'politics of difference' that counter 'equality as sameness' (pace Young) Edited by Glypt on 04/22/08 - 05:05 AM

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 51
Total Posts: 831

Posted 04/22/08 - 05:14 AM:	#161
cortes wrote: These are general satements to illuminate a contrast. You can insert whatever you wish as the shared "proper order of the world" in (1) and the contrast with (2) will still hold. You haven't illuminated anything, its utter gobbledygook. People want all sorts of things. This was never our disagreement. I want fairness too: a fair world is one in which I am worshiped as a living god. Indeed, much of what makes politics interesting is the clash of ideals of fairness. In some casees such differences can only be resolved through war. For the one millionth time you ignore the Rawlsian question. "people want all sorts of things" - what does that tell us? Also, you are corrupting the use of "fairness" by saying it would be fair if you were a God. Another language grew out of such circumstances. "fairness" wasn't part of the lexicon. However, not everyone puts fairness, however they might define it, at the top of their priorities. In fact, as a general rule, people spend a tiny faction of their time promoting fairness and the vast majority of their time pursuing their own values and working out their differences with other people. You're along the right lines here, but its a little black and white (or simple). OF course within each of our lives we follow our values (recall our disagreement on the causes of value formation), but it needs to be remembered that we are always working from a 'rational' perspect - and this causes us to act with fairness. To put in a way you would understand - you cannot help but act fairly. Edited by litkey on 04/22/08 - 05:29 AM
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 04/22/08 - 06:13 AM:	#162
litkey wrote: You haven't illuminated anything, its utter gobbledygook. It was clear enough to Makarismos. litkey wrote: For the one millionth time you ignore the Rawlsian question. "people want all sorts of things" - what does that tell us? Also, you are corrupting the use of "fairness" by saying it would be fair if you were a God. Another language grew out of such circumstances. "fairness" wasn't part of the lexicon. Fairness is the proper ordering of the world and the world would be properly ordered when everyone recognizes that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god. The problem you have is that you rely on a dictionary to make your arguments. You want to claim that everyone wants fairness but refuse to recognize that a) people mean different things by it and b) everyone rates it very low on their list of desires. litkey wrote: You're along the right lines here, but its a little black and white (or simple). OF course within each of our lives we follow our values (recall our disagreement on the causes of value formation), but it needs to be remembered that we are always working from a 'rational' perspect - and this causes us to act with fairness. To put in a way you would understand - you cannot help but act fairly. Then whatever I do and say is fair. Go peel me a grape. Edited by cortes on 04/22/08 - 07:02 AM
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: 51
Total Posts: 831

Posted 04/22/08 - 08:13 AM:	#163
cortes wrote: It was clear enough to Makarismos. Ok, but it wasn't clear to me. Fairness is the proper ordering of the world and the world would be properly ordered when everyone recognizes that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god. The problem you have is that you rely on a dictionary to make your arguments. You want to claim that everyone wants fairness but refuse to recognize that a) people mean different things by it and b) everyone rates it very low on their list of desires. You're kind of right, although I would be wary when referring to the dictionary as an argument - we can say X,Y,Z about a word (something having to have such-and-such properties to be the word, ie. water=h20) but it is more to do with context; so, and hopefully i'm being clear enough for you, when you say "fairness" in the above context, it does not work: you will need to use the word in a different way that we are normally used to. I'm not saying it cannot be used, but it seems incongruent, especially when we think in terms of meaning. Then whatever I do and say is fair. Go peel me a grape. I won't. Will you pay me?
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 04/22/08 - 08:33 AM:	#164
litkey wrote: Ok, but it wasn't clear to me. Assuming that you are being sincere and not merely obtuse, I'd be happy to clarify the point. The point was not to provide a precise description of either (1) or (2) but to illuminate a contrast between (1) and (2) or more partiuclarly, to provide a more general contrast than Markarismos had provided. He had provided a more precise (1) where fairness=equality of condition which would cover traditional socialism but not Rawlsian socialism. So I generalized the concept to draw a clearer contrast by including a wider range in (1). litkey wrote: You're kind of right, although I would be wary when referring to the dictionary as an argument - we can say X,Y,Z about a word (something having to have such-and-such properties to be the word, ie. water=h20) but it is more to do with context; so, and hopefully i'm being clear enough for you, when you say "fairness" in the above context, it does not work: you will need to use the word in a different way that we are normally used to. I'm not saying it cannot be used, but it seems incongruent, especially when we think in terms of meaning. Of course, "water" that satisfies thirst may include many chemicals other than h20. If someone says "give me some water" and I hand him a mineral water he is unlikely to complain that he wanted pure h2O. Mere imprecision is not a barier to reasoning or acting. In the above context, virtually any concept of "fairness" will suffice since the point is to contrast the pursuit of fairness to the pursuit of individual values. If you want to think in terms of Rawslian fairness, that will suffice. If I want to think in terms of fairness meaning that everyone worships me as a living god, that too will suffice. Because the point is to contrast (1) and (2) not to provide a precise description of either. Now we could certainly explore the two in greater detail but that is beside the immediate point.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 649

Posted 04/22/08 - 10:33 AM:	#165
Some initial research brings this up, admittedly it is Wikipedia so forgive me if it is inaccurate:- wiki wrote: ...it wasn't until late in his career that Rawls formulated a comprehensive theory of international politics... However, no well-ordered peoples may violate human rights or behave in an externally aggressive manner. States that do so are referred to as "outlaw states," "societies burdened by unfavourable conditions" and "benevolent absolutisms", and do not have the right to mutual respect and toleration possessed by liberal and decent peoples. This seems to contradict your objection to my original assumption: that Rawls idea of fairness only seems legitimate providing an overlapping consensus already exists between those who the ideal is to be applied to:- glypt wrote: In other words PL is unnecessary in non liberal societies because such societies do not admit plurality. Please explain, is this article accurate? If it is, how does Rawls make the jump from arguing that providing an overlapping consensus exists of type A, PL is legitimate to the rather different If no overlapping consensus exists, then PL is still (somehow??) legitimate. I had read about this part of Rawls thinking before, and this is what I refer to - Is it accurate, or rather a misreading of Rawls?

rakis
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 66

Posted 04/22/08 - 02:32 PM:	#166
Glypt, If you didn’t get it I was critical about Rawls and Habermas . That’s why I used ironically Marx’s phrase : “Tous freres tous amis“ I "accuse" them for being unable to see, especially through a Marxist perspective, the contradictory character of social relations. What’s your opinion?

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 04/23/08 - 02:51 AM:	#167
Makarismos wrote: Please explain, is this article accurate? If it is, how does Rawls make the jump from arguing that providing an overlapping consensus exists of type A, PL is legitimate to the rather different If no overlapping consensus exists, then PL is still (somehow??) legitimate. I had read about this part of Rawls thinking before, and this is what I refer to - Is it accurate, or rather a misreading of Rawls? I would assume by looking at the above that it refers to Rawls's book The Law of Peoples. As previously established PL is validated in terms of the national politics of western democracies. The Law of Peoples is not about national politics but an ideological thesis examining international justice, hence the title. Between liberal and non-liberal countries, as distinct from the pluralities within liberal countries, the problems of agreeing international law are of a different order. Among other things, Rawls proposes eight basic principles for 'a law of peoples' (p.37) and develops his arguments rooted in some of those aspects of PL that are appropriate or using a discourse upon public reasoning in answering, what liberal countries identify, as unjust treatment by rogue states of their 'citizens' or 'subjects'. I think you exhibit perfect timing in raising this aspect of Rawls's 50 year project given the events we are witnessing in Zimbabwe (I hope that is spelled correctly) etc and I'm happy to debate this further, you should start a new thread, or I will... thank you for your message.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 04/23/08 - 02:55 AM:	#168
rakis wrote: Glypt, If you didn’t get it I was critical about Rawls and Habermas . That’s why I used ironically Marx’s phrase : “Tous freres tous amis“ I "accuse" them for being unable to see, especially through a Marxist perspective, the contradictory character of social relations. What’s your opinion? I'm so sorry, I do not understand what you are asking. I tend to avoid giving opinions in response to vague assertions. I've learned from experience that nothing non-trivial ensues. Perhaps you could first define the contradiction to which you refer so that any analysis I feel qualified and inclined to provide you with is better targeted to your needs. Thank you.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 51
Total Posts: 831

Posted 04/23/08 - 03:53 AM:	#169
cortes wrote: Assuming that you are being sincere and not merely obtuse, I'd be happy to clarify the point. The point was not to provide a precise description of either (1) or (2) but to illuminate a contrast between (1) and (2) or more partiuclarly, to provide a more general contrast than Markarismos had provided. He had provided a more precise (1) where fairness=equality of condition which would cover traditional socialism but not Rawlsian socialism. So I generalized the concept to draw a clearer contrast by including a wider range in (1). Yes, I suppose it was the oblique phrasology that you used that set me in the quagmire. But given this, you need to be aware than one form of "capitalism", "anarchism" or indeed "socialism" will not be the same, you are dealing with people, not people in the absract. Of course, "water" that satisfies thirst may include many chemicals other than h20. If someone says "give me some water" and I hand him a mineral water he is unlikely to complain that he wanted pure h2O. Mere imprecision is not a barier to reasoning or acting. This is good, as you're getting the context to fit; I would only add that "fairness" needs to have its proper place. Imagine a bank manager "I'm going to keep all this years profit, and pay you all nothing, and that is fair." The only instance of agreement you will find will accrue through fear, hostility, and subjugation - but yeah, this is good stuff. In the above context, virtually any concept of "fairness" will suffice since the point is to contrast the pursuit of fairness to the pursuit of individual values. If you want to think in terms of Rawslian fairness, that will suffice. If I want to think in terms of fairness meaning that everyone worships me as a living god, that too will suffice. Because the point is to contrast (1) and (2) not to provide a precise description of either. No, this is rubbish - and you are contradicting what you have previously stated. On the Rawlsian front we will have a linguistical framework for the use of fairness- by which people will understand: see - http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Mathematician... On point 1- this is general, but point 2 I would advise that you bring some clarity into what you're saying as it comes across as gibberish. Ok,
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

rakis
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 66

Posted 04/23/08 - 04:29 AM:	#170
Glypt wrote: rakis wrote: Glypt, If you didn’t get it I was critical about Rawls and Habermas . That’s why I used ironically Marx’s phrase : “Tous freres tous amis“ I "accuse" them for being unable to see, especially through a Marxist perspective, the contradictory character of social relations. What’s your opinion? I'm so sorry, I do not understand what you are asking. I tend to avoid giving opinions in response to vague assertions. I've learned from experience that nothing non-trivial ensues. Perhaps you could first define the contradiction to which you refer so that any analysis I feel qualified and inclined to provide you with is better targeted to your needs. Thank you. I’m sorry for my vagueness. I mean that Rawls and Habermas don’t take under consideration class struggle. They don’t put under scrutiny the capitalistic way of production and of surplus value, a fact, which I think, is very crucial to help us understand many aspects of contemporary human exploitation.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5415

Posted 04/23/08 - 05:18 AM:	#171
litkey wrote: Subject: A Fair Society #1 What is a 'fair society'? ... A fair society must be recognized by everyone as such. This brings in an element of subjectivity to the argument. There is no "fair society" that everyone agrees upon. Thus, this question will never be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Let's not waste any more time on an issue in which disagreement is guaranteed.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 04/23/08 - 06:10 AM:	#172
rakis wrote: I’m sorry for my vagueness. I mean that Rawls and Habermas don’t take under consideration class struggle. They don’t put under scrutiny the capitalistic way of production and of surplus value, a fact, which I think, is very crucial to help us understand many aspects of contemporary human exploitation. Rakis, the notion of the class struggle may need a little more unpacking… even though you have done so, to an important extent by pointing out the class struggle is made manifest in the contestations of economic and more generally the full extent of socio-political franchises. Depending on which country one looks at, of course, the origins of class struggle includes accounts of ancient motives based in religious or secular privilege, eg, the caste system of India or the old boys network of the UK. This struggle also engages other classifications of difference, whether it becomes labelled as issues of gender, sexual orientation, disability, religious allegiance, etho-centricism, difficulties faced by immigrants, or indeed a long list of other "classes" marginalised from political empowerment because they are deemed either deviant or deficient...etc As you can appreciate from this line of thought, I'm suggesting that a concatination of different predicaments may be generally subsumed within a pluralistic conception underwriting modern interpretations of class struggle. As political theorists both Rawls and Habermas, by necessity, places the issue of struggles between such different classifications squarely in front of them. Which entails both authors include, for example, Marxist themes and both authors must scrutinise the problems of wealth distribution and the issues of disenfranchisment. Rawls difference principles and Habermas's discourse on autopoeitic systems theory are just two instances of their necessary scrutiny of capitalism. Crucially and most directly in Habermas since his starting point apart from Kantian and Fregian notions is mainly in Hegel, who famously predicts the problems of a consumer society and the capitalistic drivers in his discourse upon "a system of needs" (Hegel, G.W.F., 2002, [1821] The Philosophy of Right, trans., White. A, 152-162). Needless to say dialectic materialism and Marxism owes a great deal to Hegel in that respect. I hope this at least partly answers your question.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

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

Posted 04/23/08 - 06:23 AM:	#173
rabeldin wrote: litkey wrote: Subject: A Fair Society #1 What is a 'fair society'? ... A fair society must be recognized by everyone as such. This brings in an element of subjectivity to the argument. There is no "fair society" that everyone agrees upon. Thus, this question will never be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Let's not waste any more time on an issue in which disagreement is guaranteed. A society that facilitates constructive disagreement that has as its goal a fairer society is preferable to one which closes down such discourse and takes fairness off the agenda. I would say the former is a fair society and the later is not. Beware of those who dismiss the discourse on fairness, for therein lies a tendency towards either a mute citizenry that is easily dominated or a society at war with itself. Even if no one agrees as to what is fair the fact that they can disclose the grounds of their disagreement and bring it under public scrutiny entails that the social conditions that make that procedural justice possible, is orientated towards fairness which is in itself an expression of a fair society. Edited by Glypt on 04/23/08 - 06:35 AM

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 04/23/08 - 08:09 AM:	#174
litkey wrote: On the Rawlsian front we will have a linguistical framework for the use of fairness- by which people will understand: This is rather unremarkable as we would expect any specific concept of fairness to add precision by some means. litkey wrote: On point 1- this is general, but point 2 I would advise that you bring some clarity into what you're saying as it comes across as gibberish. Ok, So what is it about (2) that leaves you confused? That being my preferred approach I can easily explain it. cortes wrote: 2) People ought to pursue their own individual values and work out their differences as necessary The simplest observation to make here is that in following (2) I am not the least bit concerned with what you consider to be "fair" except insofar as I need to deal with you. I"m perfectly happy to disagree with you and to leave us in disagreement. I will tend to choose to participate in societies that are compatible my values as opposed to fitting my values to the societies in which I happen to find myself. In short, I am not the least bit concerned with the "proper order of the world", that is with fairness and justice in the abstract. I don't expect the world to be fair and I don't invest effort in making it fair. Fairness does not guide my moral decisions. If I act charitably toward someone it is not because I think I owe it to them or that the world is fairer for my actions. When I bother to vote, I don't cast my vote for the politician who promises fairness.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

rakis
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 66

Posted 04/23/08 - 08:20 AM:	#175
Glypt, You’ve written: “The problems of wealth distribution and the issues of disenfranchisement” In my opinion, such a thesis cannot transcend a reformist approach of capitalism. It is unable to get to the depths of capitalistic social relations “A society that facilitates constructive disagreement that has as its goal a fairer society is preferable A society that facilitates constructive disagreement that has as its goal a fairer society is preferable” I think this is voluntarist decisionism, for it conceals that capitalistic structure is beyond human volition.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.