|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 6, 2023 17:08:12 GMT
You have not been born. But you know you are about to be born. You do not know what race you will be when you are born. Nor do you know your sex, your religious affiliation, whether you will be a refugee, whether you will be educated, whether you will be rich or poor, religious or atheist, straight, gay, or transgender.
You are asked to make the rules for the society you will be born into without knowing any of these things.
You do not know if you will be male or female, so you will not make laws that discriminate in favour of one sex, as you will suffer if you are born the other sex. Similarly, you will not make laws that discriminate against refugees, as you do not know where you will be born. You will not make laws that discriminate against gay people, as you don’t know what your sexuality will be, etc., etc.
The modern philosopher Rawls says this is how society’s rules must be made if they are to be fair: always as if constructed by a person behind a veil of ignorance as to his own circumstances.
I’ve no idea how Rawls proposed to establish such a system. But it’s interesting to consider whether his system would produce a fair society, as he claimed.
Without giving it too much thought, I think it would. (Whether it would be practically achievable is another question entirely).
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 6, 2023 17:14:42 GMT
If it's not practical why are you worrying about it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 6, 2023 17:18:22 GMT
If it's not practical why are you worrying about it? Discussion of the topic is practical for me (and for you, obviously). |
|
roots
Full Member
Posts: 116
|
Post by roots on May 6, 2023 17:25:29 GMT
You would also not know if you'll be a criminal, so best not make law's that discriminate against them.
All his other points (gender, sexuality, race) are mute these days. The guy was born in 1921 so I guess he may have had a point back in the 50s - 60s, but not now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 6, 2023 17:28:43 GMT
You would also not know if you'll be a criminal, so best not make law's that discriminate against them. All his other points (gender, sexuality, race) are mute these days. The guy was born in 1921 so I guess he may have had a point back in the 50s - 60s, but not now. I agree that careful consideration would have to be given to criminal laws - you won't known whether you will be a criminal or a victim of crime. I've no idea why you think the question is relevant only to the 50s or 60s. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 6, 2023 20:19:30 GMT
You would also not know if you'll be a criminal, so best not make law's that discriminate against them. All his other points (gender, sexuality, race) are mute these days. The guy was born in 1921 so I guess he may have had a point back in the 50s - 60s, but not now. If you can decide what society is, then you can decide there is no criminality. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 11, 2023 18:22:15 GMT
You have not been born. But you know you are about to be born. You do not know what race you will be when you are born. Nor do you know your sex, your religious affiliation, whether you will be a refugee, whether you will be educated, whether you will be rich or poor, religious or atheist, straight, gay, or transgender. You are asked to make the rules for the society you will be born into without knowing any of these things. You do not know if you will be male or female, so you will not make laws that discriminate in favour of one sex, as you will suffer if you are born the other sex. Similarly, you will not make laws that discriminate against refugees, as you do not know where you will be born. You will not make laws that discriminate against gay people, as you don’t know what your sexuality will be, etc., etc. The modern philosopher Rawls says this is how society’s rules must be made if they are to be fair: always as if constructed by a person behind a veil of ignorance as to his own circumstances. I’ve no idea how Rawls proposed to establish such a system. But it’s interesting to consider whether his system would produce a fair society, as he claimed. Without giving it too much thought, I think it would. (Whether it would be practically achievable is another question entirely). Rawls entire premise is fundamentally flawed. Setting aside the impracticalities of making societies rules this way, its the wrong goal to shoot for in the first place. What is and isn't fair is subjective and Life isn't fair. Stomping feet and shouting it's not fair is the remit of a small child who has yet to 'hopefully' be taught this valuable life lesson by 'hopefully' his or her parents. When baby turtles hatch and dash to the sea many of them get picked off by predators. Its not fair. its not necessarily the slowest or the weakest that don't make it its chance and luck for the most part. The odds are not always the same for each turtle. What should we do to make it fair..... police the situation, give each hatchling a number and draw lots to decide which get fed to the predators and which are given protected safe passage to the sea. Is that fair? Some of those of those drawn to be on the lunch menu might have made it to the sea - is our intervention in an attempt to introduce fairness fair on them? The pursuit of fairness as the primary driver for the construct that is society is an exercise in futility. If Rawls had been any more than a third rate philosopher, that would have been the concept he'd have been exploring. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 11, 2023 19:19:56 GMT
You have not been born. But you know you are about to be born. You do not know what race you will be when you are born. Nor do you know your sex, your religious affiliation, whether you will be a refugee, whether you will be educated, whether you will be rich or poor, religious or atheist, straight, gay, or transgender. You are asked to make the rules for the society you will be born into without knowing any of these things. You do not know if you will be male or female, so you will not make laws that discriminate in favour of one sex, as you will suffer if you are born the other sex. Similarly, you will not make laws that discriminate against refugees, as you do not know where you will be born. You will not make laws that discriminate against gay people, as you don’t know what your sexuality will be, etc., etc. The modern philosopher Rawls says this is how society’s rules must be made if they are to be fair: always as if constructed by a person behind a veil of ignorance as to his own circumstances. I’ve no idea how Rawls proposed to establish such a system. But it’s interesting to consider whether his system would produce a fair society, as he claimed. Without giving it too much thought, I think it would. (Whether it would be practically achievable is another question entirely). Rawls entire premise is fundamentally flawed. Setting aside the impracticalities of making societies rules this way, its the wrong goal to shoot for in the first place. What is and isn't fair is subjective and Life isn't fair. Stomping feet and shouting it's not fair is the remit of a small child who has yet to 'hopefully' be taught this valuable life lesson by 'hopefully' his or her parents. When baby turtles hatch and dash to the sea many of them get picked off by predators. Its not fair. its not necessarily the slowest or the weakest that don't make it its chance and luck for the most part. The odds are not always the same for each turtle. What should we do to make it fair..... police the situation, give each hatchling a number and draw lots to decide which get fed to the predators and which are given protected safe passage to the sea. Is that fair? Some of those of those drawn to be on the lunch menu might have made it to the sea - is our intervention in an attempt to introduce fairness fair on them? The pursuit of fairness as the primary driver for the construct that is society is an exercise in futility. If Rawls had been any more than a third rate philosopher, that would have been the concept he'd have been exploring. I don't suppose Rawls had turtles in mind when he came up with it. I would imagine he intended it as a means to judge the fairness of manmade rules, rather than the fairness of the universe. If Rawls is a third-rate philosopher, who is a first-rate one? |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 11, 2023 20:33:15 GMT
Rawls entire premise is fundamentally flawed. Setting aside the impracticalities of making societies rules this way, its the wrong goal to shoot for in the first place. What is and isn't fair is subjective and Life isn't fair. Stomping feet and shouting it's not fair is the remit of a small child who has yet to 'hopefully' be taught this valuable life lesson by 'hopefully' his or her parents. When baby turtles hatch and dash to the sea many of them get picked off by predators. Its not fair. its not necessarily the slowest or the weakest that don't make it its chance and luck for the most part. The odds are not always the same for each turtle. What should we do to make it fair..... police the situation, give each hatchling a number and draw lots to decide which get fed to the predators and which are given protected safe passage to the sea. Is that fair? Some of those of those drawn to be on the lunch menu might have made it to the sea - is our intervention in an attempt to introduce fairness fair on them? The pursuit of fairness as the primary driver for the construct that is society is an exercise in futility. If Rawls had been any more than a third rate philosopher, that would have been the concept he'd have been exploring. I don't suppose Rawls had turtles in mind when he came up with it. I would imagine he intended it as a means to judge the fairness of manmade rules, rather than the fairness of the universe. If Rawls is a third-rate philosopher, who is a first-rate one? Life isn't fair, and no amount of man made rules will make it or society so. If I were to avoid trotting out the obvious household names like Plato and Aristotle, I'd suggest Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham would be high up on any credible list of first rate philosophers. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 11, 2023 21:32:58 GMT
I don't suppose Rawls had turtles in mind when he came up with it. I would imagine he intended it as a means to judge the fairness of manmade rules, rather than the fairness of the universe. If Rawls is a third-rate philosopher, who is a first-rate one? Life isn't fair, and no amount of man made rules will make it or society so. If I were to avoid trotting out the obvious household names like Plato and Aristotle, I'd suggest Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham would be high up on any credible list of first rate philosophers. Kant and Bentham did exactly the same thing as Rawls: they considered what it means to be 'fair'. Why do you believe Kant's categorical imperative is better than Rawls' suggestion? Bentham was even closer to Rawls, in that he considered how to make 'fair' rules for society (the felicific calculus). Why do you believe his proposal would produce a 'fairer' society? Finally, if the two philosophers you deem to be amongst the 'best' have dealt with the issue of fairness, why do you feel they are not as equally misguided as you seem to believe Rawls is? Your position seems contradictory. |
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on May 11, 2023 21:37:29 GMT
You have not been born. But you know you are about to be born. You do not know what race you will be when you are born. Nor do you know your sex, your religious affiliation, whether you will be a refugee, whether you will be educated, whether you will be rich or poor, religious or atheist, straight, gay, or transgender. You are asked to make the rules for the society you will be born into without knowing any of these things. You do not know if you will be male or female, so you will not make laws that discriminate in favour of one sex, as you will suffer if you are born the other sex. Similarly, you will not make laws that discriminate against refugees, as you do not know where you will be born. You will not make laws that discriminate against gay people, as you don’t know what your sexuality will be, etc., etc. The modern philosopher Rawls says this is how society’s rules must be made if they are to be fair: always as if constructed by a person behind a veil of ignorance as to his own circumstances. I’ve no idea how Rawls proposed to establish such a system. But it’s interesting to consider whether his system would produce a fair society, as he claimed.Without giving it too much thought, I think it would. (Whether it would be practically achievable is another question entirely). its a kind of thought exercise based on a contemplation of a society founded on a utilitarianist principal....like Kant he was exploring what's wrong with it and how could I do better....that sort of thing. Start from the premise that only those social and economic inequalities will be permitted if they work to the benefit of those at the bottom...only those qualities (inequalities) will be considered just. In any event, even from behind this Veil of Ignorance you still have to decide upon a system of justice. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 11, 2023 23:48:09 GMT
Life isn't fair, and no amount of man made rules will make it or society so. If I were to avoid trotting out the obvious household names like Plato and Aristotle, I'd suggest Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham would be high up on any credible list of first rate philosophers. Kant and Bentham did exactly the same thing as Rawls: they considered what it means to be 'fair'. Why do you believe Kant's categorical imperative is better than Rawls' suggestion? Bentham was even closer to Rawls, in that he considered how to make 'fair' rules for society (the felicific calculus). Why do you believe his proposal would produce a 'fairer' society? Finally, if the two philosophers you deem to be amongst the 'best' have dealt with the issue of fairness, why do you feel they are not as equally misguided as you seem to believe Rawls is? Your position seems contradictory. I don't recall either being particularly hung up on fairness. Morality, ethics, right and wrong sure, but fairness not so much. Take Kant and your reference to categorical imperative. boil it down it really just amounts to a variation on 'do unto others...' His big thing was reasoning driving morality, so in his terms If I decided to do something the right or wrong of it would be down to whether I'd be happy to have everyone else practice the same behaviour. Bentham was more about right and wrong being a function of pleasure and pain. i'e if an action would bring a lot of pleasure to a lot of people, and a minimum of pain to a minimum of people indeed felicific calculus was his way of measuring this relationship. Again, absolutely nothing to do with fairness. Bentham's way of thinking lead him to all sorts of very modern ideas. Ideas 200 years ahead of his time. Separating Church and State, woman's rights, buggary, animal cruelty. His influence on politics, law, and all sorts was extensive to say the least and personally I don't see how anyone could put Rawls in the same league let alone need a rationalisation for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 12, 2023 0:30:44 GMT
Kant's categorical imperative related to personal morality. I don't see that that is very different from Rawls. Sure, Rawls was talking about how society should behave, not the individual, but a person's personal morality will factor in his thinking about what is right for society.
I disagree with your assessment of Bentham's position, too. He believed that a system that worked on a pleasure/pain measure was a 'fair' system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 12, 2023 9:01:09 GMT
You can see from the world that people choose to live in societies with harsh penalties for criminality, despite any risk of being a criminal themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on May 12, 2023 16:22:43 GMT
Kant's categorical imperative related to personal morality. I don't see that that is very different from Rawls. Sure, Rawls was talking about how society should behave, not the individual, but a person's personal morality will factor in his thinking about what is right for society. I disagree with your assessment of Bentham's position, too. He believed that a system that worked on a pleasure/pain measure was a 'fair' system....I agree...I think Bentham summed it up as them being "our sovereign masters" whereby Kant suggested that as rational beings we were not slaves to animal instincts or basic appetites.... |
|
