What does /his/ think of John Rawls?
My textbook states that Rawls is often said to be the most important political philosopher of the 20th century.
I like messing the idea of a sci-fi short story that takes place in a world that he controls.
>>908480
>What does /his/ think of John Rawls?
He clings to his fantasy of the veil of ignorance, which is another attempt to talk about the common goods, in order to save the Human rights. Another speculator dwelling in his thought experiment, legitimized since the modern era...
>>908501
I find the idea that we don't own our talents and that they should only be used for the upliftment of those who are least well off absolutely insane. How was this guy taken seriously?
>>908501
>>908509
I'm taking a philosophy seminar with an ethicist who wants to become a contendor with Nozick and Rawls by offering a competing theory of distributive justice. He spent a couple hours reading apart the basic premises of Rawls' theory. It was interesting to watch analytic philosophy in process. He's been doing philosophy for a very long time, but he refuses to tell us anything about Rawls that isn't related to the man's ideas, except that he had a huge cult of personality. It's frustrating because I can't find much information about the guy's life.
Once again, one wonders if the disproportionate percentage of Jews involved in analytic philosophy has anything to do with this Jewish theorist's ideas being so widespread today.
>>908480
He's certainly the most important *analytic* political philosopher of the 20th century, though there have been other political philosophers not necessarily of the analytic school of some high stature, e.g. Hannah Arendt, Leo Strauss, Carl Schmitt, Giorgio Agamben, among others.
As for the philosophy itself, it's not especially good, being based off of misunderstandings of Hobbes and Locke (including misunderstandings of the differences between the two), and a tendency to abstraction inappropriate towards political things such that makes Plato look like a realist in comparison.
There are several good and short critiques that I can point to maybe worth looking over:
Starting at page 56:
http://www.interpretationjournal.com/backissues/Vol_6-2.pdf
Starting at page 249:
http://www.interpretationjournal.com/backissues/Vol_9-2-3.pdf
Starting at page 163:
http://www.interpretationjournal.com/backissues/Vol_21-3.pdf
Starting at page 11:
http://www.interpretationjournal.com/backissues/Vol_27-2.pdf
>>908613
fucking huge thanks to you anon
I'm writing an essay on if Rawls's difference principle and the implications if it were adopted in South Africa.
You might have just saved me a lot of time.
>>908548
>one wonders if the disproportionate percentage of Jews involved in analytic philosophy has anything to do with this Jewish theorist's ideas being so widespread today
oh please. Rawls revived social contract theory after it being considered basically dead for centuries since Hume's seminal critique (Of the Original Contract). He had an extensive knowledge of economics, rarely matched by philosophers today, and even putting his theory aside, he introduced a number of ideas into analytic philosophy that can hardly be avoided today; for example his idea of reflective equilibrium basically revived normative ethics in analytic philosophy.
>>908613
>being based off of misunderstandings of Hobbes and Locke
I'm curious why you think that.
>>908678
But anon, analytic philosophy has been a Jewish racket from the beginning
>>908698
but anon, Rawls wasnt even a jew. see "on my religion"
>>908678
>I'm curious why you think that.
It's a bit of an involved critique to make, but Rawls, in A Theory of Justice, makes a move similar to Hobbes and Locke in putting forward an account of the "origins" similar to the state of nature in the latter two philosophers. The difference between these accounts is what's instructive, in that Hobbes and Locke are trying to put forth an account of the source of positive law, custom, and government, and in accounts designed to shed light on the legitimacy of existing institutions (or to at least show the proper way of such institutions). Rawls thinks he's pulling the same move, but he rejects the natural right/law tradition that Hobbes and Locke move within; all well and good, but then his argument ends up being merely construct and arbitrary, with all that's going for it being that it's "intuitively appealing". There's more to it than any of this, but in short, one of his basic moves is to put forward an "original state" account like Hobbes and Locke, but with no good reason to do so, having rejected the underlying reasons that caused those two to make their own arguments; he basically misses the point of a very basic move he makes, having abstracted things too much.
>>908658
Cheers, man.
>>908480
Rawls seems like a philosopher who spent a lot of time trying to justify welfare capitalism, or some sort of social-democratic political system, which I think is why so many people like him,
>>908480
Yea. He separated politics and ethics in a way that makes ethics redundant to discuss in politics. So people after him are largely responses that agrees, disagrees, or want to modify his thoughts.
I haven't read him in years but I remember being sceptical to the idea that someone behind the veil always would want to give different groups certain rights when it came to believes. If I remember right, he argues that we should respect creationists because we could very well end up creationists, while I'd argue that no nigga if I was deemed insane by 99% of the population I don't want you to respect my feelings I want you to set me straight if I end up with the creationist mind.
>>908838
I like the example he gives with a pie.
If you dividing up a pie, naturally you want the biggest piece.
However, you know that if there is a chance that you might have to be the last person that gets to pick a piece you will divide it up equally
>>908885
I don't get how this translates into real life, even if he is correct with that psychological tidbit.
>>908905
it doesn't, I find lots of his stuff doesn't translate.
>>908931
Yeah, it was interesting. I liked the part where he talks about no goods existing without work, so even if you agree to the concept of the Veil of Ignorance, there is nothing to distribute, and even if there was something to distribute, it was made by someone to whom it belongs.
It shows, at least to me, at any rate, that Rawls is being very idealistic.
>>908885
The problem with this and veil of ignorance is that pie pieces are not distributed randomly in real life. People with the power most fit for a given environment thrive and get the pie.
Let's imagine a video game, say Pong as an analogy. You behind veil of ingnorance where you don't know whether you will be the one hitting the ball in the goal or the not. There for we should make it so the points are given to both the winner and the loser right???!
No, outcomes are decided by player action. And not all players are equal.
>>908480
Nozick wrecked him and Wittgenstein is more important.
Stated that justice and injustice is subjective and that people should just role with it. said that the upper class should be used for the benefit of the poor, regardless of the upper classes rights and/or opinions. He is fucking evil.
http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/deeper-dive-blog/3858-blind-injustice-john-rawls-and-a-theory-of-justice
this goes into more detail.
this video summarizes him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-JQ17X6VNg
BTW the statement "Rawls is often said to be the most important political philosopher of the 20th century." was first coined by Bill Clinton.
>>908480
The Veil of Ignorance is a useful tool for removing some of the biases that constrain the choices we make.
However, the idea of a "view from nowhere" and a complete absence of bias is incoherent. If you had a group of people setting up society, and they were entirely free from bias, then they would have no values, and would thus not care about creating anything, let alone a just society.
I still kind of like it, in a "we could asymptotically approach fairness, but never actually fully reach it" sort of way.
>>909603
Good example. Will steal.
>>908509
the idea that we don't own our own talents (specifically our natural talents) comes from the fact that we got these talents through absolutely no effort of our own. It's entirely lucky that we were born with the talents that we have.
>>909638
*tips fedora*
>>908905
It's supposed to help us determine what is just and fair.
>>909638
>He is fucking evil.
>people who prioritize different values than me are evil!
>>909684
I know a talented artist. I can assure you he didn't know how to draw when he was born. All talents are developed.
No one is born knowing how to draw, to do science, or run well (yes even running, there are techniques for that). But people are born with genetic advantages that allow them to learn faster.
These genetic advantages too are not entirly hidden since you know what their parents were like.
>>909684
That I completely understand, however, I read somewhere that he thought it wrong that we should benefit from these talents at all as it would be unfair.
The only way that we should use our talents is to benefit those who have none.
>>909720
>people are born with genetic advantages that allow them to learn faster.
That's sort of the point. I didn't choose to have whatever natural advantages that I have. For Rawls, these qualities are thus morally arbitrary. This is specific to the notion of moral "dessert". You don't deserve something just because you're better able to get it. This contrasts with his notion of entitlement. A good analogy my professor used was: suppose you win the lottery; you don't deserve the winnings of the lottery, but you are entitled to them.
So I guess for Rawls we would all be entitled to the fruits of our labor, but we don't deserve them. I think it stems a lot from the fact that he's a Kantian; universality of intrinsic moral worth for humans.
>>909729
>The only way that we should use our talents is to benefit those who have none.
Yeah, that's his "difference principle". In setting up a just society behind the veil, we would, as rationally self interested individuals, only allow for income disparity to occur if the worst off in society benefited from it. This allows brain surgeons and engineers to still make much more money, as without the increased incentive, there would be less of them, and thus society as a whole (and thus the least well off) would be worse off.
Again, this is all supposed to act as a litmus test for fairness. Would we set up a society with all of these possible fates for these different possible walks of life we could be born into? Until we can unequivocally say "yes", then the society we then create is not yet fair, and thus it is not yet just.
I'm not in full agreement with him. As Nozick points out, that does create a sort of "slavery" at the expense of the talented and wealthy, which uses them as means. There's also the inherent incoherence of the original position and the veil of ignorance itself (either we still have SOME biases, or we lack the bias that drives us to create just principles by which to govern society).
