John Rawls (1921-2002)

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

John Rawls (1921-2002)

Post by Philosophy Now »

Alistair MacFarlane traces the life of an influential political theorist.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/John_Rawls_1921-2002
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: John Rawls (1921-2002)

Post by d63 »

“Rawls arrived at his principle of Justice as Fairness by using a famous thought experiment. He asks us to forget, so far as possible, all considerations of our own personal circumstances, such as knowing our sex, race, position in society, inherited wealth and good education, or lack of them, and forget even our own previous aims and values. He called this imagining ourselves behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ regarding our present position in society. Being ignorant of our position in society, we must then choose what sort of world we would accept the risk of being born into. In this imagined world, whatever privileges or disadvantages we currently enjoy or suffer under could not be assumed to apply; and Rawls argues that this would force us, after due consideration and reflection, to conclude that we must take into account everyone’s situation equally, so ensuring fairness for all.” –from Alistair MacFarlane’s article on John Rawls in Philosophy Now

When I first encountered Rawl’s Original Position argument in an intro to philosophy textbook, I too was excited. It just made sense. However, after a while of living with it, I began to see that it suffered from the fate that every other progressive attempt to prop up progressive agendas through philosophical means does: it succumbs to the subjective disposition of the individual and ends up, at best, preaching to the choir. Such is the futility of such a project.

Say I was to engage in this experiment with a FreeMarketFundamentalist Libertarian. I, of course, would offer some utopian hybrid economy that would, at a minimum, address the basic needs of everyone involved including the worse off among us. The Libertarian, on the other hand, would offer an Ayn Rand vision of world in which everyone received a reward equivalent to their effort. Their holy equation amounts to reward = merit. This, of course, is complete nonsense. But it is justified by recognizing three forms of justice: justice according to need (that based on need), justice according to equality (as in equality of opportunity), and justice according to merit (that which the libertarian focuses on, as well as equality, and that we can’t totally dismiss). And it would do us no good to make arguments about what would happen if they were born crippled. They would either defer to free will, Steven Hawkins, and the ability to overcome obstacles; or they would defer to the Social Darwinism of arguing that then they simply wouldn’t want to continue existing.

Where the Original Position does work, however, is in recognizing the precarious and absurd nature of our position in the world. I can ask myself why I have become the creatively and intellectually curious person I am, to which I would have to answer because my father was a creatively and intellectually curious person. But then I would have to ask why he ended up creatively and intellectually curious and so on and so on. And the chains of cause and effect trail off and converge into nothing. So while no strategy we can devise could possibly “put the other in their place”, Rawl’s thought experiment still seems useful who are empathetic with him in the first place.

But let's address the snarling tiger in the room. There comes a point at which reason fails and all that is left is force. We are dealing with people that are focused on immediate self interest. And it is that immediate self interest that is contributing to man-made climate change. And it will only get worse as the effects of that climate change push populations near the equator further north. The only thing we can hope for beyond that is to convince them of what is actually in their self interest.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: John Rawls (1921-2002)

Post by Belinda »

d63 wrote:
We are dealing with people that are focused on immediate self interest. And it is that immediate self interest that is contributing to man-made climate change. And it will only get worse as the effects of that climate change push populations near the equator further north. The only thing we can hope for beyond that is to convince them of what is actually in their self interest.
Educated populations deal with the causes of man-made climate change. In order to have an educated population there has to be the political will. Unfortunately democracy's side effect is that popular policies win votes. The popular vote is for immediate rewards e.g. better health care, fewer immigrants, lower taxes, or charismatic politicians.

With such a mixed hand progressives need to use our own propaganda to get the education ball rolling, and culture clashes are inevitable and necessary. Diplomacy is most effectual strategy for culture clashes at home and abroad.

How can diplomacy be done so that the popular culture becomes more progressive? Older people are dying off which is a good start as older people tend to be conservative. Affluence is increasing among populations in developed societies and affluence increases education and social mobility. Under development and climate change is causing the refugee problem which causes the affluent in-group to close its borders. There is no colourful religion that pertains to the progressives and cultures of ignorance and anger are increasing among the deprived, notably among young men.

I suggest that each aspect of the problem needs to be addressed separately.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: John Rawls (1921-2002)

Post by d63 »

Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:57 am d63 wrote:
We are dealing with people that are focused on immediate self interest. And it is that immediate self interest that is contributing to man-made climate change. And it will only get worse as the effects of that climate change push populations near the equator further north. The only thing we can hope for beyond that is to convince them of what is actually in their self interest.
Educated populations deal with the causes of man-made climate change. In order to have an educated population there has to be the political will. Unfortunately democracy's side effect is that popular policies win votes. The popular vote is for immediate rewards e.g. better health care, fewer immigrants, lower taxes, or charismatic politicians.

With such a mixed hand progressives need to use our own propaganda to get the education ball rolling, and culture clashes are inevitable and necessary. Diplomacy is most effectual strategy for culture clashes at home and abroad.

How can diplomacy be done so that the popular culture becomes more progressive? Older people are dying off which is a good start as older people tend to be conservative. Affluence is increasing among populations in developed societies and affluence increases education and social mobility. Under development and climate change is causing the refugee problem which causes the affluent in-group to close its borders. There is no colourful religion that pertains to the progressives and cultures of ignorance and anger are increasing among the deprived, notably among young men.

I suggest that each aspect of the problem needs to be addressed separately.
Here! Here! Belinda. Yes, a re-emphasis on civics and social sciences (even the arts) in primary education might be a good start. We have to roll back the dumbing down of America.
Post Reply