Talking about John Rawls . . .

oh, nobody was talking about John Rawls? Well, we should start.

The most important philosopher of the twentieth century. . . he may well have been the greatest writer on issues of justice, rights and equality since Immanuel Kant two centuries ago.

Anyone read his A Theory of Justice?

I'm doing a review of the way he has been interpreted, etc., in the 21st century. I would appreciate any comments ...

You have introduced me to something new in my 67 years. I shall pursue this.

K & R.

And THIS is why I come to DU.

and it seems that his view is similar to seeing things from other perspectives. If you see from all perspectives, like his ideal hypothetical, you reach a neutral point to think on justice.

Also nothing to lose, and no desire for gain, puts a person in a similar position, but it is hard to reach that position in practice also.

For instance, I am out of smokes(literally), and that simplest of things, has me in a situation of fighting bad compromise on my own part. For instance, posting this sentence is an example of compromise of my principle. Since I, wanting smokes, no longer am in a neutral position to think on things, and show that by my indicating a want that I have, while in a discussion that should be self neutral. Since the post becomes also having a self gain in it. So my judgement on justice is not without thoughts of self gain in this example. And if it includes self gain, that bias distorts the judgement.

Would I change a thought I might post because I think I could get cigarettes if I don't offend this person or that? Making my thoughts on justice skewed if I include thoughts of want or self.

So that simple example shows how no want and nothing to lose together forms a position of neutrality to think on justice.

end of story.

However, if you want to research on the Internet, may I suggest The Encyclopedia of Philosophy @
http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rawls.htm

And was not doing research just getting something to think on. :)

But thanks for the links.

:rofl: I didn't mean to offend, really.
I am really an old softie and have never really enforced that rule ....
:)

I understand within your context of studing it, my context of just browsing a few paragraphs is much different. :)

I did not mean to offend either.

It is particularly helpful to read Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia as a companion. It is for the most part libertarian crap, but it is fairly well reasoned crap and I think it is good to contrast the two. Helps to illustrate the two philosophies and gives focus to why Rawls' position is superior in most respects.

borrow a set of hip waders from Sarah Palin.

Actually, if I am not mistaken ...and I suppose there is always the outside chance of that - improbable as it sounds to me at the time (LOL) Nodick died before Rawls and I am just looking at views of Rawls since Rawls died in 2002. Not to worry, I have a whole lot of Liberarian screeds over in a bucket in the corner. (LOL)

I am working on organizing the thing at this point (should I take a look at the various views on certain ideas of his, ie, the Veil of Ignorance, Justice as fairness, etc.; should I organize it by critiquer, or by
groups of critiques,i.e., The Right, The Others, etc.....I thought about using the heading Considerations from the Right I started to call this The Usual Suspects but I realized that would be as dismissive of the Libertarian Right as that group of Pigs is of anyone who seems like he/se might even come close to having a social construct for humanity. For a group who "just vants to be left alone," they take a perversive glee in trashing the concepts, philosophies, and ideals of others.

...and the anti-Rawls, namely Robert Nozick, will appear immediately, sometimes with, sometimes without a puff of smoke and the smell of sulfur.

If your context is polemical, be prepared to defend Rawls against Nozick's arguments from Anarchy, State and Utopia. He's the darling of Libertarians, and not a hack like Rand, either. It takes some doing.

On edit: I like Rawls' Political Liberalism very much as well. Taken with Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies, the two books sketch out what modern (post-John Stuart Mill) liberalism has going for it.

:0)

I wouldn't be so quick to assume a well-read (i.e. literate) libertarian would endorse Nozick entirely, given Nozick's repudiation of utilitarianism.

...any of Nozick's works post-'78 or so, at least when these battle were fought on USENET eons ago.

There's a quirky, games-playing side to some of Nozick's stuff -- and the possibility that some of it is almost a jeu d'esprit -- that undercuts some of his own work, and that dogmatic libertarians don't much care for.

But a lot of the time the two were talking past each other, Nozick focusing on a scheme for the distribution of goods in the sense of stuff, and Rawls on a scheme for the distribution of rights.

The strange thing is, both men had pretty thoroughgoing critiques of traditional utilitarianism... which is the default position most students come through the door with. (I blame Spock.)

Rawls and Popper eat Nozick for lunch.

... and the sound of dry winds can be heard blowing over the intellectual wasteland of those who proclaim to be "liberals" without the slightest grounding in the coherent philosophy as articulated by Prof. Rawls. There's lots of self-serving posturing and quick-to-condemn attacks, but little real logical argument from base principles.

(sigh) :shrug:

-- leaving aside his ethics for a second -- places a lot of emphasis on shared concepts of justice, and different but overlapping consensuses on the aims of a society. It's the very antithesis, in many ways, of the my-way-or-the-highway, with-me-or-against-me politics that has featured prominently in recent years, on both sides.

Doing nothing but hurling anathemas and condemnations isn't the basis of a functioning polity.

:yoiks:

Or at least it seems like that's the feeling I get when I get into discussions, and then I mention Popper or Rawls and it goes right over their heads. :banghead: