A Fair Society: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

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

A Fair Society
a look at this idea.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

A Fair Society

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 769

Posted 02/18/08 - 07:41 AM: Subject: A Fair Society	#1
What is a 'fair society'? A look back in History unfold many unfair events that have happened; to which- slavery, limited voting, genocide. Is is 'fair' that a person be a slave? No, when it comes to this answer we understand that we ourselves would not want to be a slave, and would find it unfair and degrading to our person. - so we outlaw slavery. John Rawls, in his book 'theory of Justice' wants to imagine a person ignorant of their interests, ignorant of personality, wealth, religion, race, etc., He is touching upon the idea that our current place in society is contingent. see: http://radio.weblogs.com/0104634/stories/2002/07/... What he argues is that when people are ignorant of their interests, they will naturally act in the favour of a fair society. Example: I f a person was asked if they would like a hospital with ramps for disabled people? The answer the person gives is "Yes." Why? Because once the veil is lifted , he might be the person without legs, and having to get to the car park. This example can be used for health, race, religion, and ....wealth. We are Ignorant of Individual circumstance; hwoever, it allows us to think about society, as in "what would be fair?" - - and Ironically, we do this from a selfish standpoint. ie,. I wouldn't want to live in a slave society, I wouldn't want to be homeless, I wouldn't want religion to be outlawed ...what if I was that religious person? - etc., It is simply a thought excercise. Clearly we are situated in society already- In our contingent fashion, but the 'Veil of Ignorance' allows us to escape luck, and think what we might do when asked specific questions at the Veil of Ignorance. If you are a right wing demi-god, and were asked: Would you live in a society where 2% held 90% of the wealth, and sweatshops were prevalent - would you say "Yes" to this form of society, or would you think again, as you may end up in the sweatshop? Edited by litkey on 02/19/08 - 01:16 AM
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Mystikiwi
Student

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

Posted 03/24/08 - 03:43 AM:	#2
I found this topic by doing a search for "fair". It seems quite clear that the Universe is "unfair". It's quite interesting that humans somehow decided that "fairness" was a desirable thing to aim for. By aiming for fairness we are going against Nature ...but then, maybe Nature is not perfect and human intelligence is needed to improve on it... but who can really say who deserves what?

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 533

Posted 03/24/08 - 09:32 AM:	#3
Surely Rawls attempt at putting us in the original position to decide upon the way things should be ordered, involves him giving us some basic knowledge to use? A grasp of economics, the ideas of democracy, tyranny, republic, ideas about how humans are likely to behave and function. Is it not possible, that given a different set of information, those in the original position might organise the world differently? Does Rawls stack the deck?

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 03/24/08 - 10:36 AM:	#4
(Mystikiwi) The real question is not so much is the universe fair because even Rawlisans like Litkey can't think so or else they woudn't need to invent a parallel universe to seek justice. Quite obviously "fair" is inherently unnatural. (Makarismos) Nor is there any reason to regard Rawls thought experiment as the original position. It is merely one hypothecial situation. Let me propose, alternatively, the Cortesian origional position: when people are ignorant of reality they will agree to anything. Don't believe me? Suppose you awake in a hospital bed, as Rawls likes to imagine, but this time you have been given a drug that induces you to believe, like the Aztecs, that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god. Now the question is put to you: Whose will shall be done? Your answer is, of course, the will of Cortes. Thus we have a nice, simple, universal ethical system based on "the" starting position as describe in the above thought experiment. What's not to like about it? The other problem with Rawls is that he entirely misses the differences among individuals. Depending on how much "knowledge" you remove from the test subjects, most people will give different answers to questions such as how wealth ought to be distrubted. Some will favore more equality while others will favor merit. This is fairly easy to establish by asking people. Even in the case of slavery, you would certainly get different answers at differing points in history. The bottom line is that what is "fair" is not agreed on in the real world and only by destroying or supressing the natural differences among people can you achieve it in Rawls fantasy world.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

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

Posted 03/25/08 - 01:06 AM:	#5
Is Rawls, by any chance, a communist? He wants to repress the capitalistic will of an individual so that said individual may serve "the good of the many." We call that tyranny of the majority. Or, in America, we call it the welfare state.
_____________________ "A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 769

Posted 03/25/08 - 03:42 AM:	#6
cortes wrote: (Mystikiwi) The real question is not so much is the universe fair because even Rawlisans like Litkey can't think so or else they woudn't need to invent a parallel universe to seek justice. Quite obviously "fair" is inherently unnatural. Using the above doesn't mean anything unless you are willing to explain what you mean, but that isn't one of your strong points huh? Although, it does look like a sentence, so perhaps you've done some fumigating on the skull. In any case, we need to remember that there is such a thing as "fairness" in the human world - and it is something that keeps as all together, and it is what ostracizes those that go against it ...unless you are a mafia boss, and sociopathic. We see 'fairness' every waking moment of our lives - is that "natural"; well of course, it would only be a dunderhead that placed us outside of nature. (Makarismos) Nor is there any reason to regard Rawls thought experiment as the original position. It is merely one hypothecial situation. Rawls referred to his thought experiment using the term "original position" - and it was also supposed to be used in real life practical situations. Don't believe me? Suppose you awake in a hospital bed, as Rawls likes to imagine, but this time you have been given a drug that induces you to believe, like the Aztecs, that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god. Now the question is put to you: Whose will shall be done? Your answer is, of course, the will of Cortes. No disrespect intended, but do you sniff glue? With the TE there is something referred to as the "Veil of Ignorance" - there is no drugs to induce any belief, Aztec or otherwise. However, what there is, and where Rawls is attacked often, is a 'general idea of human psychology' : we have pleasure, we have fears, we have motivations; But, nothing can undo the strength of the TE as it indicates an irrational side to a person if there were to choose eg, to wake in a slave society, to wake with religious hatred, to wake with gods killing men... It would be indicative of irrationality, that's the aspect you are blind to, but hey, get off the glue, and you never know huh? The other problem with Rawls is that he entirely misses the differences among individuals. Depending on how much "knowledge" you remove from the test subjects, most people will give different answers to questions such as how wealth ought to be distrubted. Some will favore more equality while others will favor merit. This is fairly easy to establish by asking people. Even in the case of slavery, you would certainly get different answers at differing points in history. This is something Rawls is also attacked on, and I believe it's the problem of his "general psychology" notion, because IF we are going to choose, and IF we are going to be at this original position, then it behoves R to stipulate some type of human that makes XYZ choices, and his GP perhaps does not cover the notion of "Risk" and the "Gambling Instinct" in man; however, we start at the original position with one single premise, and its this - Man is Rational. If we disagree with this, then sure, we are on thin bread. Look to the following choices: 60/40- slight economical differentiation 50/50- egalitarian political/social 95/5 - slavery A 60/40 choice might not be so bad;however, the 95/5 is certainly batting in a different field; we are talking about political repression, torture, death, everything we could possibly imagine at the original position - and Rawls wants to say (and I agree) that it would only be a mad man that needed a labotomy that went for 95/5 - it would be an unnecessary choice to make. In 'nature', people flee from such situations. The bottom line is that what is "fair" is not agreed on in the real world and only by destroying or supressing the natural differences among people can you achieve it in Rawls fantasy world. You contradict yourself when you say, for example "This property is mine because I paid for it." then follow this with "There is no such thing as fairness." What if someone came into your home at took your possessions? Stole your wife away to the mountains? Will you complain? IF you do, then you might need to explain what has happened, and you will need to use concepts that you are attacking here. Nozick says, for example, land should be given back to the Indians, as they had their land stolen away from them- but he admits, he does not know how to do this, other than offer reasonable prices on light bulbs for their casinos.
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 533

Posted 03/25/08 - 07:38 AM:	#7
litkey wrote: cortes wrote: (Mystikiwi) The real question is not so much is the universe fair because even Rawlisans like Litkey can't think so or else they woudn't need to invent a parallel universe to seek justice. Quite obviously "fair" is inherently unnatural. Using the above doesn't mean anything unless you are willing to explain what you mean, but that isn't one of your strong points huh? Although, it does look like a sentence, so perhaps you've done some fumigating on the skull. In any case, we need to remember that there is such a thing as "fairness" in the human world - and it is something that keeps as all together, and it is what ostracizes those that go against it ...unless you are a mafia boss, and sociopathic. We see 'fairness' every waking moment of our lives - is that "natural"; well of course, it would only be a dunderhead that placed us outside of nature. But if humans are natural, and the universe is natural, and presumable something so sculpted by us as a social convention is also natural - what is not natural? Do you reserve the term "un-natural" for things which don’t exist at all? If you do, then why use the term natural, it can’t have a meaning if the meaning is anything at all. litkey wrote: Makarismos) Nor is there any reason to regard Rawls thought experiment as the original position. It is merely one hypothecial situation. Rawls referred to his thought experiment using the term "original position" - and it was also supposed to be used in real life practical situations. You are both correct - the original position is hypothetical of course, and this hypothetical position was to be used to judge what the "fair" course of action would be in a given situation. The trouble is that "fair" is ill defined, and many situations do not have a fair outcome. Have you ever heard the phrase - life is not fair? You seem to be saying that "fairness" is separate from mankind. That an objective set of guidelines exist which dictate what is fair or not fair? If such a thing does exist, how can we know details about it? How would you find out what is fair? Do you have to rely on your own intuition, or can it be done with maths? Or is there a book of fairness which we can all consult? If there is a book, how can we know it’s genuine? I am highly sceptical that there is an objective standard of fairness, or that we could know about it if it did exist, but perhaps you know better than me where to look. litkey wrote: Don't believe me? Suppose you awake in a hospital bed, as Rawls likes to imagine, but this time you have been given a drug that induces you to believe, like the Aztecs, that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god. Now the question is put to you: Whose will shall be done? Your answer is, of course, the will of Cortes. No disrespect intended, but do you sniff glue? With the TE there is something referred to as the "Veil of Ignorance" - there is no drugs to induce any belief, Aztec or otherwise. However, what there is, and where Rawls is attacked often, is a 'general idea of human psychology' : we have pleasure, we have fears, we have motivations; But, nothing can undo the strength of the TE as it indicates an irrational side to a person if there were to choose eg, to wake in a slave society, to wake with religious hatred, to wake with gods killing men... It would be indicative of irrationality, that's the aspect you are blind to, but hey, get off the glue, and you never know huh? Ahh I see. If someone disagrees with the sort of society that Rawls would like, then they are irrational: Any ideas as to why? Are there a set of rules I can use to work out what is fair for everyone, a set of rules which can be found to be objectively true? Please, tell me where and how I can find these absolute rules you keep implying? And why the cheap shots about glue sniffing? is it because your argument is so lacking? Couldn’t you come up with points against Cortés position, rather than insinuating things about his personal habits? Even if he did sniff glue, would that mean that he could not voice a good argument? No, even a drug addict can have good logic, that’s what makes life so interesting. litkey wrote: The other problem with Rawls is that he entirely misses the differences among individuals. Depending on how much "knowledge" you remove from the test subjects, most people will give different answers to questions such as how wealth ought to be distrubted. Some will favore more equality while others will favor merit. This is fairly easy to establish by asking people. Even in the case of slavery, you would certainly get different answers at differing points in history. This is something Rawls is also attacked on, and I believe it's the problem of his "general psychology" notion, because IF we are going to choose, and IF we are going to be at this original position, then it behoves R to stipulate some type of human that makes XYZ choices, and his GP perhaps does not cover the notion of "Risk" and the "Gambling Instinct" in man; however, we start at the original position with one single premise, and its this - Man is Rational. If we disagree with this, then sure, we are on thin bread. And surely you can’t deny that man is capable of being quite irrational. Further, even if man were rational, this does not mean he would chose to be giving and charitable to his fellow man: rather he would pay lip service to human kind while in secret stealing goods and subverting laws for his own advantage. Your mafia don is perhaps the most rational of people. litkey wrote: Look to the following choices: 60/40- slight economical differentiation 50/50- egalitarian political/social 95/5 - slavery A 60/40 choice might not be so bad;however, the 95/5 is certainly batting in a different field; we are talking about political repression, torture, death, everything we could possibly imagine at the original position - and Rawls wants to say (and I agree) that it would only be a mad man that needed a labotomy that went for 95/5 - it would be an unnecessary choice to make. In 'nature', people flee from such situations. Again you use the meaningless term "nature", leaving your statement as "people flee from these situations". People often can not flee from these situations, and sometimes they don’t want to. You simplify all of human existence to a percentage figure of distribution of wealth, and then hold this up as the standard for what is fair? Can I take it from this that you do think that mathematics should describe politics? I would question your assumption that slavery is merely about being deprived of wealth - isn't there a question of ownership of individuals? Of pay, or rather a lack of pay for services rendered? Or are all poor people slaves? If they are, then why do all countries still have slaves, given that we are expressly forbidden them by law? Perhaps your idea of slavery is faulty also. litkey wrote: The bottom line is that what is "fair" is not agreed on in the real world and only by destroying or supressing the natural differences among people can you achieve it in Rawls fantasy world. You contradict yourself when you say, for example "This property is mine because I paid for it." then follow this with "There is no such thing as fairness." What if someone came into your home at took your possessions? Stole your wife away to the mountains? Will you complain? IF you do, then you might need to explain what has happened, and you will need to use concepts that you are attacking here. Perhaps there could exist different laws than we have now? You can't surely deny that other cultures have had different laws than we do in the west? Future cultures will have yet more different laws, moral and otherwise? If you admit this, then you can see that something is fair, iff we all agree on it. It is not fair because god says so, or because the universe commands it, or because mathematics when applied correctly shows us if it is right to tip our waiter. It is social convention which defines fairness, what it is and how it should be applied. litkey wrote: Nozick says, for example, land should be given back to the Indians, as they had their land stolen away from them- but he admits, he does not know how to do this, other than offer reasonable prices on light bulbs for their casinos. Brilliant, excellent example of a situation in which fairness is impossible. It would be fair to give the native Americans back their lands - but it is certainly not fair to deprive the American public of their lands - and Rawls does not have an answer to this. His original position does not give an answer. So we still don’t know what is fair. Oh well.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 03/25/08 - 08:10 AM:	#8
JAC wrote: Is Rawls, by any chance, a communist? He wants to repress the capitalistic will of an individual so that said individual may serve "the good of the many." We call that tyranny of the majority. Or, in America, we call it the welfare state. Shhh! We're not supposed to notice that.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 769

Posted 03/25/08 - 08:20 AM:	#9
Makarismos wrote: But if humans are natural, and the universe is natural, and presumable something so sculpted by us as a social convention is also natural - what is not natural? Do you reserve the term "un-natural" for things which don't exist at all? If you do, then why use the term natural, it can't have a meaning if the meaning is anything at all. You are on the right track here, however I would be on the look out for situations where "natural" -to you- felt unnatural. Then, you might find something natural going on. both correct - the original position is hypothetical of course, and this hypothetical position was to be used to judge what the "fair" course of action would be in a given situation. The trouble is that "fair" is ill defined, and many situations do not have a fair outcome. Have you ever heard the phrase - life is not fair? 'Fairness' is something both defined, and experienced. You will find these can be at odds with one another, for example one referee may say foul, and another referree call it 'fair'. Sometimes it will just be a matter of the intuitive or "rational" response that plays the causal outcome: and what we sometimes define as "fair." Cortes understands this, although his brain melted some time ago, and I think a gila-monster has replaced him. But, yeah, you are on the right path here. ghly sceptical that there is an objective standard of fairness, or that we could know about it if it did exist, but perhaps you know better than me where to look. and quite right too, it is good to be sceptical. ee. If someone disagrees with the sort of society that Rawls would like, then they are irrational: Any ideas as to why? Are there a set of rules I can use to work out what is fair for everyone, a set of rules which can be found to be objectively true? Please, tell me where and how I can find these absolute rules you keep implying? The implication is that if people are rational, then they will make rational choices, there really isn't much more to it than that, however if you want to say someone would make an irrational choice, then this isn't to go into disputation it is simply to equate to a person with sinility or perhaps retardation. Retards make choices everyday, it doesn't mean that they are the right choices. You understand?? the cheap shots about glue sniffing? is it because your argument is so lacking? Couldn't you come up with points against Cortés position, rather than insinuating things about his personal habits? Even if he did sniff glue, would that mean that he could not voice a good argument? No, even a drug addict can have good logic, that's what makes life so interesting. I have nothing against Cortes sniffing glue, each to their own I say. Although, I think it affects his arguments in that all he writes seems to smack of arrogant trivial rantings. But, I think he has a sense of humour, so I hold out hope. ely you can't deny that man is capable of being quite irrational. Further, even if man were rational, this does not mean he would chose to be giving and charitable to his fellow man: rather he would pay lip service to human kind while in secret stealing goods and subverting laws for his own advantage. Your mafia don is perhaps the most rational of people. Again you use the meaningless term "nature", leaving your statement as "people flee from these situations". People often can not flee from these situations, and sometimes they don't want to. You simplify all of human existence to a percentage figure of distribution of wealth, and then hold this up as the standard for what is fair? Can I take it from this that you do think that mathematics should describe politics? I would question your assumption that slavery is merely about being deprived of wealth - isn't there a question of ownership of individuals? Of pay, or rather a lack of pay for services rendered? Or are all poor people slaves? If they are, then why do all countries still have slaves, given that we are expressly forbidden them by law? Perhaps your idea of slavery is faulty also. Yes indeed, the mafia boss could be rational, infact I would say he was acting always rationally. This is the point old sport, and the single point that Cortes missed from day 1- we are always acting rationally. Could you find a single person that would say "oh yes, I act irrationally." No. People act from the standpoint of rationality, or what we might describe as 'their own rationality." To say someone is acting irrationally,is to make a judgement that they have faulty thinking, that they have done something that could cause harm to themselves. You see? SO, when a person chooses a society of 95/5 - with very little chance of being in the rich, with a greater chance of torture, we say the choice was crazy, ill-made, idiotic, retarded, a choice made by a corrupt mind, or a mind of a lobster. When there is the choice of 50/50 it seems on the surface that the 50/50 is a win/win situation. This is why Rawls starts with the preposition: We are rational at the Original Position.
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 03/25/08 - 08:32 AM:	#10
litkey wrote: cortes wrote: (Mystikiwi) The real question is not so much is the universe fair because even Rawlisans like Litkey can't think so or else they woudn't need to invent a parallel universe to seek justice. Quite obviously "fair" is inherently unnatural. Using the above doesn't mean anything unless you are willing to explain what you mean, but that isn't one of your strong points huh? Although, it does look like a sentence, so perhaps you've done some fumigating on the skull. In any case, we need to remember that there is such a thing as "fairness" in the human world - and it is something that keeps as all together, and it is what ostracizes those that go against it ...unless you are a mafia boss, and sociopathic. We see 'fairness' every waking moment of our lives - is that "natural"; well of course, it would only be a dunderhead that placed us outside of nature. If there is such a thing as "fairness" in the human world why do you and Rawls insist on dabbling in fantasy worlds? The world is not fair. That is fairly obvious, is it not? If the world were fair then what need would we have for ostracization? Mystikiwi's inference that fairness is "unnatural" is entirely reasonable. I would put it this way: Fairness is unnatural. But the desire for fairness is entirely natural. Rawls referred to his thought experiment using the term "original position" - and it was also supposed to be used in real life practical situations. It is his origional position. It is not the only original position as I demonstrated. That you fancy his original position is obvious. litkey wrote: Don't believe me? Suppose you awake in a hospital bed, as Rawls likes to imagine, but this time you have been given a drug that induces you to believe, like the Aztecs, that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god. Now the question is put to you: Whose will shall be done? Your answer is, of course, the will of Cortes. No disrespect intended, but do you sniff glue? With the TE there is something referred to as the "Veil of Ignorance" - there is no drugs to induce any belief, Aztec or otherwise. However, what there is, and where Rawls is attacked often, is a 'general idea of human psychology' : we have pleasure, we have fears, we have motivations; But, nothing can undo the strength of the TE as it indicates an irrational side to a person if there were to choose eg, to wake in a slave society, to wake with religious hatred, to wake with gods killing men... It would be indicative of irrationality, that's the aspect you are blind to, but hey, get off the glue, and you never know huh? Trust me, you are seizing on an irrelvancy. If you prefer to stick to a miracle device that merely creates ignorance then imagine, instead, that you are now ignorant of science. So I perform some demonsrations of my living god powers such as turning on the TV and changing the channels. Try and stick to the point and save us some time. As I pointed out before, nothing could be more irrational than making choices out of willful ignorance which is precisely what Rawls asks us to do. litkey wrote: The other problem with Rawls is that he entirely misses the differences among individuals. Depending on how much "knowledge" you remove from the test subjects, most people will give different answers to questions such as how wealth ought to be distrubted. Some will favore more equality while others will favor merit. This is fairly easy to establish by asking people. Even in the case of slavery, you would certainly get different answers at differing points in history. This is something Rawls is also attacked on, and I believe it's the problem of his "general psychology" notion, because IF we are going to choose, and IF we are going to be at this original position, then it behoves R to stipulate some type of human that makes XYZ choices, and his GP perhaps does not cover the notion of "Risk" and the "Gambling Instinct" in man; however, we start at the original position with one single premise, and its this - Man is Rational. If we disagree with this, then sure, we are on thin bread. Man is rational. True. Man is irrational. Also true. Is there any disputing the latter? Rationality is insufficient. This is also true but I suspect given our previous discussion you may disagree with that one. It is the key point on which I disagree with Objectivists, for example. litkey wrote: Look to the following choices: 60/40- slight economical differentiation 50/50- egalitarian political/social 95/5 - slavery A 60/40 choice might not be so bad;however, the 95/5 is certainly batting in a different field; we are talking about political repression, torture, death, everything we could possibly imagine at the original position - and Rawls wants to say (and I agree) that it would only be a mad man that needed a labotomy that went for 95/5 - it would be an unnecessary choice to make. In 'nature', people flee from such situations. My point is simply that over time and across people you will get different choices. It is one of two criticisms of Rawls argument. And you may even find some people who would rather take a chance on being the 1/20 slaveholder depending on how they value that position vs. the more pedestrian positions. litkey wrote: The bottom line is that what is "fair" is not agreed on in the real world and only by destroying or supressing the natural differences among people can you achieve it in Rawls fantasy world. You contradict yourself when you say, for example "This property is mine because I paid for it." then follow this with "There is no such thing as fairness." See first point above. But also note that I have pointed this out a long time ago: Morality is inherently hypocritical. cortes wrote: Inevitable Moral Hypocrisy. When it comes to ethics and morality we are all hypocrites. Moral hypocrisy is inevitable, part of the human condition, as natural as breathing. http://www.conquistador.org/newsletterissue?newsletterIssueEntityId=804 litkey wrote: What if someone came into your home at took your possessions? Stole your wife away to the mountains? Will you complain? IF you do, then you might need to explain what has happened, and you will need to use concepts that you are attacking here. If I sat down and cried that the world is not fair what exactly would that prove? See first point above.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 769

Posted 03/25/08 - 09:45 AM:	#11
cortes wrote: Using the above doesn't mean anything unless you are willing to explain what you mean, but that isn't one of your strong points huh? Although, it does look like a sentence, so perhaps you've done some fumigating on the skull. In any case, we need to remember that there is such a thing as "fairness" in the human world - and it is something that keeps as all together, and it is what ostracizes those that go against it ...unless you are a mafia boss, and sociopathic. We see 'fairness' every waking moment of our lives - is that "natural"; well of course, it would only be a dunderhead that placed us outside of nature. If there is such a thing as "fairness" in the human world why do you and Rawls insist on dabbling in fantasy worlds? The world is not fair. That is fairly obvious, is it not? If the world were fair then what need would we have for ostracization? Mystikiwi's inference that fairness is "unnatural" is entirely reasonable. You really are talking, to use an English expression, utter Twaddle. I never said the world was fair, as I never said the world was unfair. If you look it will read "the human world" - and within this world we have the concept "fairness." Take your silly glasses off, at least for 20 minutes...please??? Trust me, you are seizing on an irrelvancy. If you prefer to stick to a miracle device that merely creates ignorance then imagine, instead, that you are now ignorant of science. So I perform some demonsrations of my living god powers such as turning on the TV and changing the channels. Try and stick to the point and save us some time. You are walking in jelly. What is your argument, what are you even trying to say?Rawls point stands, end of story. I haven't said it was correct. As I never said he was wrong; I have also tried my best to suggest what the arguments are against Rawls, instead you have this meagre offering of bird feed? What's the matter with you? do me a small favour, go back and read the Rawls thought experiment, and instead of going off on your usual rant, try something new, like answering the Rawlsian question. please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position As I pointed out before, nothing could be more irrational than making choices out of willful ignorance which is precisely what Rawls asks us to do. What does this have to do with anything? We have gone over this before, and your responses were the same stilted cheese. It is a HYPOTHETICAL THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. < - - - - - - - - - Man is rational. True. Man is irrational. Also true. Is there any disputing the latter? Rationality is insufficient. This is also true but I suspect given our previous discussion you may disagree with that one. It is the key point on which I disagree with Objectivists, for example. Twaddle. Man is not irrational. Man is rational. He will act from his beliefs X,Y,Z < - - rational. For example I think sometimes you think from a stand point of a lobster, but you certainly don't think so...right? We all act from a "rational" perspective. You made a semi-reasonable point on this, about "individual preferences" but you were blind to these very acts of "preference" being the resultant implication of having a rational mind. You argued that Natural Rights do not exist, you thus beat your own argument. =/ My point is simply that over time and across people you will get different choices. It is one of two criticisms of Rawls argument. And you may even find some people who would rather take a chance on being the 1/20 slaveholder depending on how they value that position vs. the more pedestrian positions. Stop pointing into the sky, pointing behind, and pointing at others - what would you do? If the choice was 50/50 or 95/5 you would not make the 95/5. Simple. Recall the Original Position. You aren't just thinking of you, you are also thinking about what others will choose, what your friends might choose, you are thinking, also, about what a society might look like, and as the History of Rationality has moved from the Divine Right of Kings to the ideas of freedom, liberty, democracy, the Individual will not have any legitimate arguments for slavery, for repression, for kings, and for this reason each person will choose the 50/50; of course it is HYPOTHETICAL < - - - - - - ; HOWEVER, it gives an insight , a real insight, into how we would choose, if there was an Original Position. Quite wonderful. If I sat down and cried that the world is not fair what exactly would that prove? See first point above. Look, after you have cleaned out your brain, you need to be aware that you can't speak of justice, law, rights etc., if you claim that there is no fairness. If there is no fairness, then there is only might=right. Facism, racism, totalitarianism etc., and you know the history of this ideal. =)
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 03/25/08 - 10:17 AM:	#12
litkey wrote: I never said the world was fair, as I never said the world was unfair. If you look it will read "the human world" - and within this world we have the concept "fairness." I didn't say you had. I had directed my point to Mystikiwi but you got confused so I explained it for you. litkey wrote: cortes wrote: Trust me, you are seizing on an irrelvancy. If you prefer to stick to a miracle device that merely creates ignorance then imagine, instead, that you are now ignorant of science. So I perform some demonsrations of my living god powers such as turning on the TV and changing the channels. Try and stick to the point and save us some time. You are walking in jelly. What is your argument, what are you even trying to say?Rawls point stands, end of story. I haven't said it was correct. As I never said he was wrong; I have also tried my best to suggest what the arguments are against Rawls, instead you have this meagre offering of bird feed? Jelly? Yes, Rawlsian Jelly. But now that I have brought you back from your irrelevant tangent let me repeat my point: People who are ignorant of reality will believe anything. I think it was Larry Niven (or some other SF writer) who said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." The Cortesian corrolary is that if you are willfully ignorant you will believe in magic. If you are collecting arguments against Rawls you can add mine, once you understand it. litkey wrote: cortes wrote: As I pointed out before, nothing could be more irrational than making choices out of willful ignorance which is precisely what Rawls asks us to do. What does this have to do with anything? We have gone over this before, and your responses were the same stilted cheese. It is a HYPOTHETICAL THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. < - - - - - - - - - Sure. As is mine. What say we toss out Rawls "hypothetical thought experiment" and explore mine instead. It's much more interesting, I think. litkey wrote: Man is rational. True. Man is irrational. Also true. Is there any disputing the latter? Rationality is insufficient. This is also true but I suspect given our previous discussion you may disagree with that one. It is the key point on which I disagree with Objectivists, for example. Twaddle. Man is not irrational. Man is rational. He will act from his beliefs X,Y,Z < - - rational. ... We all act from a "rational" perspective. So you seem to believe. I am a little surprised that you would deny that Man is also irrational. From where do those beliefs come? I'll give you a hint: they were not rationally deduced. litkey wrote: My point is simply that over time and across people you will get different choices. It is one of two criticisms of Rawls argument. And you may even find some people who would rather take a chance on being the 1/20 slaveholder depending on how they value that position vs. the more pedestrian positions. Stop pointing into the sky, pointing behind, and pointing at others - what would you do? If the choice was 50/50 or 95/5 you would not make the 95/5. Simple. Recall the Original Position. You aren't just thinking of you, you are also thinking about what others will choose, what your friends might choose, you are thinking, also, about what a society might look like, and as the History of Rationality has moved from the Divine Right of Kings to the ideas of freedom, liberty, democracy, the Individual will not have any legitimate arguments for slavery, for repression, for kings, and for this reason each person will choose the 50/50; of course it is HYPOTHETICAL < - - - - - - ; HOWEVER, it gives an insight , a real insight, into how we would choose, if there was an Original Position. Quite wonderful. I'll stop pointing to the sky when you stop trying to pretend it's not there. If one is given a choice between two gold coins and one gold coin then the choice is pretty simple. But if one is given a choice between a 1% chance at 100 gold coins and 100% chance at 1 gold coin then different people will choose differently. litkey wrote: Look, after you have cleaned out your brain, you need to be aware that you can't speak of justice, law, rights etc., if you claim that there is no fairness. If there is no fairness, then there is only might=right. Facism, racism, totalitarianism etc., and you know the history of this ideal. =) Sure I can. Justice is when you do my will. I am, after all, a living god as I previously demonstrated. Alas, the world is not just. But I can wish it were so and do all in my power to make it so. I'm hungry, go peel me a grape.
_____________________ 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: 11
Total Posts: 533

Posted 03/25/08 - 12:18 PM:	#13
litkey wrote: ... Could you find a single person that would say "oh yes, I act irrationally." No. People act from the standpoint of rationality, or what we might describe as 'their own rationality." ... When there is the choice of 50/50 it seems on the surface that the 50/50 is a win/win situation. This is why Rawls starts with the preposition: We are rational at the Original Position. But if everyone is rational, and everyone has different rational perspectives which disagree, then what is rational is undecided. So the question "is Rawls original position a good way to find a fair society" is unanswerable (or rather, we can get anyone to answer whatever they want, and anyone else can disagree, but no one can say for sure...). If your right, and reason itself is relative, then you’re wrong at the same time. The whole of knowledge is wrong in fact - so I'd rather not agree with you on this point. It would ruin my standing in the social . Cheers P.S No one has or will ever inhabit the original position, and we (being irrational) will forever disagree about what we would say in such a position.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 03/25/08 - 01:23 PM:	#14
Makarismos wrote: litkey wrote: ... Could you find a single person that would say "oh yes, I act irrationally." No. People act from the standpoint of rationality, or what we might describe as 'their own rationality." ... When there is the choice of 50/50 it seems on the surface that the 50/50 is a win/win situation. This is why Rawls starts with the preposition: We are rational at the Original Position. But if everyone is rational, and everyone has different rational perspectives which disagree, then what is rational is undecided. So the question "is Rawls original position a good way to find a fair society" is unanswerable (or rather, we can get anyone to answer whatever they want, and anyone else can disagree, but no one can say for sure...). If your right, and reason itself is relative, then you're wrong at the same time. The whole of knowledge is wrong in fact - so I'd rather not agree with you on this point. It would ruin my standing in the social . P.S No one has or will ever inhabit the original position, and we (being irrational) will forever disagree about what we would say in such a position. Well put. Speaking personally, I can think of many times that I act irrationally. I can think of plenty of beliefs and values that I hold that I cannot defend rationally. I am perfectly comfortable with my irrationality even as I seek to be more rational at strategic points in my life. As I noted in the previous post, life would be terribly boring if we all conformed to the rationalist ideals of philosophers. (It's interesting that Rawls is not satisfied to invent a fantasy world, he also has to populate it with fantasy rational beings.) Fortunately, most of us have better sense and so manage to leave happy and fulfilling irrational lives. Most amusing, of course, is Litkey's irrational obsession with rationality.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 769

Posted 03/26/08 - 02:38 AM:	#15
Makarismos wrote: But if everyone is rational, and everyone has different rational perspectives which disagree, then what is rational is undecided. So the question "is Rawls original position a good way to find a fair society" is unanswerable (or rather, we can get anyone to answer whatever they want, and anyone else can disagree, but no one can say for sure...). If your right, and reason itself is relative, then you're wrong at the same time. The whole of knowledge is wrong in fact - so I'd rather not agree with you on this point. It would ruin my standing in the social . Cheers P.S No one has or will ever inhabit the original position, and we (being irrational) will forever disagree about what we would say in such a position. At last, someone with a brain! Praise the lord! i) On the 'irrationality' front it would be justified to say "Cortes is an irrational lobster-man." However, it may only be justified to me, as Cortes might think himself unlobsterlike. So, from the inside, each of us may be as 'right' be as 'justified' and be as 'rational' as we each believe ourselves to be. ii) The Original Position in one sense I view merely as a tool. A 'tool' to use at the right time. Say you didnt know you had brothers and sisters; and you woke in the hospital (O Position) and you had no idea to your own place in society, to what your family structure looked like, and you were asked "would you like discrimination against women?" It would be an unnecessary choice to say yes; this implies a necessary choice. What if you didnt know you were a man or a woman? What are you going to say? In this sense, it isn't matter of risk, or gambling - it is simply being...."rational". iii) Where does the "fair society" come in then? Well, I agree with the thinking that fairness is not something we can all agree on, I agree that it is not something inherent in our universe - it is a human concept, and perhaps it is an emotional aspect of human-ness ie. we feel what is fair. And what we feel is unfair - we experience this all the time. In my other posts- "less Government" and "Anarchism" - there is the thought that wealth is contingent ie. on your birth, luck (although cortes thinks he is a God and above this type of thinking); this being the case, how do you go about using "fair" or "justice" or "equality" when there is an unfair gun at the starting post? My point being, if we use "fairness" it entails a recognition of the contingency of wealth, of property, of power. To use a little illustration - Do you think the Normans in 1066 gave a thought to the property rights of the Angles, the Jutes, and the Saxons? They took, and that was that. They had no "fairness." < - - right? So, should we do away with "fairness"? Edited by litkey on 03/26/08 - 02:44 AM
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Mystikiwi
Student

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

Posted 03/26/08 - 05:48 AM:	#16
I've been following the discussion with interest. There have been some good points and observations made by everyone. litkey, It's interesting to consider your sig ... "If I meet God, I'm going to spit in his eye." It's not surprising that you would feel that way since I guess "God" (i.e. the personification of the creative power in the Universe) is responsible for giving us all such unequal starts in life. "God" sets an extreme example of "unfairness" it would seem.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 769

Posted 03/26/08 - 06:26 AM:	#17
The "God" I am referring to would be the Christian/Islamic God. Obviously this idea of "God" is a fiction, and only people that don't think believe (without question), but I am attacking the idea that "God" is benevolent, omniscient etc., it if it were true, God would have to be a cunt.
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Mystikiwi
Student

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

Posted 03/26/08 - 06:55 AM:	#18
OK. Back to the topic of "A Fair Society" then... If you had the political power and the task of making the world fair what would to do/change? (or at least some examples of things you would do).

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 769

Posted 03/26/08 - 07:47 AM:	#19
1- ban government 2- Burn the bibles - keep things simple.
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

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

Posted 03/26/08 - 08:19 AM:	#20
I'm sorry, but I find Mr. Rawls to be ridiculous. Does he honestly believe that all of his fellow humans would love nothing more then to be equal and uniform with everyone else? Socialism is an immense threat today and he's perpetuating a very socialist ideal that the needs, wants, and desires of an individual are subservient to the needs, wants, and desires of the state. Using his example of ignorance, we could ask someone: "We are going to redistribute wealth from the rich of the society to the poor." Would the "ignorant" person permit this? On one hand, he may be rich, and money would be taken away from him. On the other hand, he may be poor, and money will be given to him. But what if he says to himself, "Even if I am poor, I will never choose to live off the welfare of others." Then there should be no redistribution of wealth? But if we ask another person, they might say yes because they would not want to be poor and would gladly place their well-being in the hands of others. The whole thought experiment comes crashing down because humans ARE different - there is no way to escape it. Capitalism is the only system to acknowledge that. Socialism wants to repress it. Even in the example you give in the OP, you can see that the "right wing demi-god" did not escape his personal taste. Namely, his personal dislike for sweatshops. A person truly ignorant of personal likes and dislikes would be apathetic, and would care neither for the sweatshop or for the wealth. The greeks called such people idiots. If it is Rawls' desire that all people be idiots then society would not, and could not, be fair because there would be no will or desire to seek fairness. Socialists fail to understand that the desire for equality is itself an individualistic desire; and that the only way to achieve universal equality is through coercion, which is the exact "unfair act" they charge as the immorality of capitalism. Again: ridiculous. cortes wrote: Shhh! We're not supposed to notice that. Oops. Sorry... Edited by JAC on 03/26/08 - 08:27 AM
_____________________ "A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 769

Posted 03/26/08 - 09:22 AM:	#21
JAC wrote: I'm sorry, but I find Mr. Rawls to be ridiculous. Does he honestly believe that all of his fellow humans would love nothing more then to be equal and uniform with everyone else? Socialism is an immense threat today and he's perpetuating a very socialist ideal that the needs, wants, and desires of an individual are subservient to the needs, wants, and desires of the state. Rawls isn't a socialist; sure, the interpretation is there, but it's loosely based on his "maximin" principle: those that earn the maximum are to benefit those that are at the bottom of society. I don't know what you mean by "needs of the state". If we follow the original position, and then hypothetically traverse to the real thing, we will find we might be rich, poor, or even slaves (depending on our choices) - - the "state" as he writes of it, is something that will entail "justice" or "fairness" - and the principles of fairness parallel those principles that underpin our choices at the veil of ignorance ie., we would want law, we would want hospitals, we would want welfare for the soldiers coming back from war etc., I find him anything but ridiculous. "We are going to redistribute wealth from the rich of the society to the poor." But isn't this done already? in schools, hospitals, the police force? "wealth distribution" ??? Be aware much of his theory depends on the premise that we would think and choose "rationally" at our original position, or at the Veil of Ignorance (VOI). If you get that, then you understand where he wants to go with the infrastructure/superstructure.
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 03/26/08 - 09:32 AM:	#22
JAC wrote: I'm sorry, but I find Mr. Rawls to be ridiculous. Join the club. JAC wrote: Does he honestly believe that all of his fellow humans would love nothing more then to be equal and uniform with everyone else? Socialism is an immense threat today and he's perpetuating a very socialist ideal that the needs, wants, and desires of an individual are subservient to the needs, wants, and desires of the state. Suffice it to say that infatuation with Rawls is a very reliable predictor of socialist beliefs. JAC wrote: The whole thought experiment comes crashing down because humans ARE different - there is no way to escape it. Capitalism is the only system to acknowledge that. Socialism wants to repress it...Socialists fail to understand that the desire for equality is itself an individualistic desire; and that the only way to achieve universal equality is through coercion, which is the exact "unfair act" they charge as the immorality of capitalism. Bingo!
_____________________ 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: 36
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 03/26/08 - 09:34 AM:	#23
Mystikiwi wrote: If you had the political power and the task of making the world fair what would to do/change? (or at least some examples of things you would do). I"m not sure if you appreciate the inherent bias in your question. What if fairness cannot be achieved by force?
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Nonblack Raven
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 1237

Posted 03/26/08 - 12:29 PM:	#24
Rawls proposed both 1) a mechanisms to of deciding what was fair, and in turn just, since Rawls argued that justice is fairness, and 2) a set of policies, based on this mechanism that might be regarded as just. Beginning with a summary of some of the position Rawls derived as just, Rawls positions are radically redistributionist in favor of the worst off in society; strongly in favor of civil liberties (such as freedom of speech, of religion etc.) and of government enforced anti-discrimination. He was indifferent to socialism if socialism is defined as government or other collective ownership of the means of production. Rawls was also radically anti-majoritarian, contrary to the impression some seem to have. For example, given a choice between a society in which 1) 95 percent of the population is rich and 5 percent miserably poor and 2) a society in which 100 percent are poor but none miserably so, a Rawlsian would choose the second as the more just society. Rawls consistently holds that the happiness or views of the majority was unimportant to justice—it is the state of the worst off in society that must drive the concept of justice. However, Rawls fame derives not from a set of somewhat liberal opinions but from providing a mechanism for deriving such views that he, and others, felt was better supported than the opinions themselves—this was Rawls original position argument. The original position argument asks us to decide the justice or fairness of social rules to imagining ourselves in a situation in a situation in which we have no idea who we will be in a society, and that we have no idea of how it will be decided who we will be. To get the actual results Rawls derives from this thought experiment calls for several strong and somewhat dubious assumptions: 1) that we treat the question of who we will be in the society as a matter of complete uncertainty, and use a mini-max approach to addressing the resulting uncertainty. Imagining one would be assigned a spot in the ultimate society randomly will not yield Rawls results (Such an approach will yield something close to some standard kinds of utilitarianism rather than Rawls results.) It is also necessary to Rawls results that the approach that we regard a mini-max approach as the only rational approach to total uncertainty. Many may disagree with this assumption. 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. The point of this aside, is that because of these technical difficulties, I don’t think Rawls succeeds even on his own terms of using the original position to show that a rational person in the original position must arrive at Rawls own views about justice.
_____________________ NBR

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 03/26/08 - 06:07 PM:	#25
Nonblack Raven wrote: The point of this aside, is that because of these technical difficulties, I don’t think Rawls succeeds even on his own terms of using the original position to show that a rational person in the original position must arrive at Rawls own views about justice. Rawls basically admits that his conceptions of justice are not necessarily correct but his general conception of justice as fairness is. Anthropologists agree. Fairness is one of the universal human traits found among every social group. How that is applied as justice varies widely but fairness is held in high esteem by all societies.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.