|
|
Post by Equivocal on May 14, 2023 6:59:53 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 think fairness was a particular concern for Bentham or Kant but I think all three were concerned with doing the right thing. I suppose you could argue that Bentham's greatest good must be fair for society overall, while Kant's deontological approach sort of assumes a fair result because one is always meant to act in an ethical manner.
I think Rawl's approach is something of a halfway house where the aim is semi utilitarian, but tempered by a hierarchy of personal rights, which work on a scale of must not be to should not be violated, to achieve the required result. An attempt, if you like, to be as fair as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 14, 2023 7:45:39 GMT
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 think fairness was a particular concern for Bentham or Kant but I think all three were concerned with doing the right thing. I suppose you could argue that Bentham's greatest good must be fair for society overall, while Kant's deontological approach sort of assumes a fair result because one is always meant to act in an ethical manner.
I think Rawl's approach is something of a halfway house where the aim is semi utilitarian, but tempered by a hierarchy of personal rights, which work on a scale of must not be to should not be violated, to achieve the required result. An attempt, if you like, to be as fair as possible.
I don't see that there's much difference between doing the right thing and fairness. You don't appear to, either (if I've understood you correctly). |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on May 14, 2023 8:25:28 GMT
I don't think fairness was a particular concern for Bentham or Kant but I think all three were concerned with doing the right thing. I suppose you could argue that Bentham's greatest good must be fair for society overall, while Kant's deontological approach sort of assumes a fair result because one is always meant to act in an ethical manner.
I think Rawl's approach is something of a halfway house where the aim is semi utilitarian, but tempered by a hierarchy of personal rights, which work on a scale of must not be to should not be violated, to achieve the required result. An attempt, if you like, to be as fair as possible.
I don't see that there's much difference between doing the right thing and fairness. You don't appear to, either (if I've understood you correctly). I think if you do the right thing for the right reason (Kant) or aim to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number (Bentham), then the result should be a fair one for society as a whole. I don't think the aim is to be fair on an individual basis. I think Rawls tries to remedy the potential of individual unfairness by having individual rights that 'shouldn't' be violated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 14, 2023 8:35:31 GMT
I don't see that there's much difference between doing the right thing and fairness. You don't appear to, either (if I've understood you correctly). I think if you do the right thing for the right reason (Kant) or aim to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number (Bentham), then the result should be a fair one for society as a whole. I don't think the aim is to be fair on an individual basis. I think Rawls tries to remedy the potential of individual unfairness by having individual rights that 'shouldn't' be violated.
Ah, I see. Yes, Bentham certainly didn't mean his system to produce 'individual justice'. You're saying that Rawls was concerned with individual justice. I suppose you're right. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 14, 2023 10:05:34 GMT
I think if you do the right thing for the right reason (Kant) or aim to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number (Bentham), then the result should be a fair one for society as a whole. I don't think the aim is to be fair on an individual basis. I think Rawls tries to remedy the potential of individual unfairness by having individual rights that 'shouldn't' be violated.
Ah, I see. Yes, Bentham certainly didn't mean his system to produce 'individual justice'. You're saying that Rawls was concerned with individual justice. I suppose you're right. Well that's the problem with the veil of ignorance, it can be a good thing, but more often than not a very bad thing. |
|
