what have you say, /lit/, on Rawl's Theory of Justice and reflective equilibrium? do you try to have consistent morals, or are you perfectly fine with backtracking on your own beliefs when personally convenient?
>>7891893
here's a pdf of 'Justice as Fairness' for anyone who is unfamiliar but interested in this;
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/RawlsJustice.pdf#page=4&zoom=auto,-151,579
anybody
>>7891975
tldr Rawls doesn't even
>>7891893
I have consistent moral. However if something affects my family, I am willing to backtrack on my own beliefs if it helps them.
>Rawl's Theory of Justice and reflective equilibrium?
hated it
>>7892076
>hated it
why?
>>7892068
Okay I'll elaborate. In effect, the veil of ignorance is predicated on a perfectly homogenous human population, which is contradicted by reality: every individual is determined by nature and nurture, and this necessarily informs the philosopher's conception about what he would desire if he didn't know beforehand his place in that society.
For example, Hindus could believe, after "reflective equilibrium," that they are interested in promoting values consistent with reincarnation. This just shows that Rawls' explanation of the result of this thought experiment is predicated on his own intuitions.
He also takes for granted that society exists for the sake of *all* it's members. It's not usually questioned, but this assumption should be analyzed more.
tldr Rawls wrote 600 words of turgid bullshit to pretend he wasn't just defending his intuitions
>>7892116
> every individual is determined by nature and nurture
>takes for granted that society exists for the sake of *all* it's members
no, he's simply saying that the most perfect view of justice and society could be arrived at from these prerequisites. he in no way says these are reality. do you even philosophy?
>>7892116
Yeah, it has zero credibility as anything objective. But it's interesting to me (not OP btw) as a formal way of developing my intuitions into consistent ethical standards. The best way to live by intuition (IMHO) is to try and turn your intuitions into maxims, and alter those maxims in accordance with other intuitions. But this only makes sense when everything is subjectively objective.
>>7892131
>a formal way of developing my intuitions into consistent ethical standards
which is literally the point so good job
Rawls is a fucking gaylord.
>>7892239
why do you say that anon :^)
>>7891893
>Rawl
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, to the point of asking to be paid for this...
>>7892265
>Another speculator dwelling in his thought experiment
welcome to philosophy
/lit/'s views are depressingly ignorant in this thread. i thought maybe there was actually an intelligent board on this site.
