What's your Op. ON Rawls

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-11-16 09:17pm

What do you think of John Rawls and his theory Of Justice as Fairness?

Frank_Scenario · Post by **Frank_Scenario** » 2004-11-18 11:57pm

I'm generally pro-Rawls. But that's highly uninformative.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-11-19 12:40am

I liked some of his ideas too.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-11-19 12:41am

Never heard of him.

wood · Post by **wood** » 2004-11-19 08:21am

perhaps some background from http://www.philosophypages.com :

American political philosopher. As presented in A Theory of Justice (1971), Rawls's concept of "justice as fairness" offers a non-historical or hypothetical variation on the social contract theory, in which rational agents make social decisions from behind a "veil of ignorance" that prevents them from knowing in advance what status they will hold. According to Rawls, this method will produce a society where individual liberties are maximized for all citizens and social inequality is justifiable only under conditions that would be beneficial for its least-favored members. Further exposition of this theory, along with a restatement Rawls's opposition to utilitarianism and an examination of political pluralism, appear in Political Liberalism (1993). Two Concepts of Rules (1955) is an early statement of Rawls's basic principles.

I had to look him up - I'd never heard of him either.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-11-19 09:09am

Yea. He is perhaps one of the most influential moral justice theorists in history.

wood · Post by **wood** » 2004-11-19 09:41am

Do you know of any good internet resources where I could read up on him?

Something a little more in-depth than the blurb I provided?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-11-19 10:10am

I really don't understand what his position or views are from that blurb.

In plain English, rather than philosophical mumbo-jumbo, what does he say and how is what he says so revolutionary? He seems a bit too recent.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-11-19 01:15pm

Basically, he is giving a theory for social justice as a moral unit.

He states that in society, the best sytem of justice is, ironically, related to the Utiltarian ideal of egalitarian treatment. Everyone, prima facie, is treated as an equal unit of society.

Members of society are divided into classes and that makes them biased as to what they think is fair/just. To fix this problem, people must look at the original possition and the veil of ignornance

In this respect, imagine what the world would be like with you comming into it without a special privledge, right, or ability which aids you in the social lottery. Make rules and regulations for society which benefit, mutually, everyone to the best of society's ability, and make it so that the social inequalities, which society must have, help those who need it most through situation and merit----plan the rules to accomodate those in special need circumstances. There must be some inequalities, which are necessary for the overall health and function of the society as well. For example, some need to get paid more and get more respect because of their intelligence, or the worth of their job. It is fair to give them more (respect and money) because of the benefit they give to society. If they didn't get that incentive, they wouldn't help society.

Everyone should gain access, fairly, to the basic needs as well as basic liberties, as best as society can provide.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-11-19 01:16pm

From what I interpret, it has a lot of good points which seem very utiltarian. From a social contracterian point of view, his justice as fairness and equality can help a lot of people and make society fairly functional.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-11-19 04:40pm

I see. I had to read that about three times to actually understand what the fuck "justice of fairness" means (part of the problem is that the term doesn't actually fit or describe what it consists of), but I think I understand it.

Overall, it's a somewhat noble idea, though frankly too simplistic and wishful thinking. As someone who supports the idea of social class distinction, I would have to say that I do not agree with him.

Frank_Scenario · Post by **Frank_Scenario** » 2004-11-25 07:31pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:From what I interpret, it has a lot of good points which seem very utiltarian. From a social contracterian point of view, his justice as fairness and equality can help a lot of people and make society fairly functional.

Big mistake here. Rawls is in no way a utilitarian; when he presents justice as fairness in TJ2, he takes a Kantian deontological approach. The move to political liberalism in the eponymous text drops the deontological approach (since he's no longer offering a comprehensive moral doctrine, but instead a political conception) - but retains some of the mechanisms that were originally derived from said position.

Frank_Scenario · Post by **Frank_Scenario** » 2004-11-25 07:46pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Basically, he is giving a theory for social justice as a moral unit.

He states that in society, the best sytem of justice is, ironically, related to the Utiltarian ideal of egalitarian treatment. Everyone, prima facie, is treated as an equal unit of society.

Members of society are divided into classes and that makes them biased as to what they think is fair/just. To fix this problem, people must look at the original possition and the veil of ignornance

In this respect, imagine what the world would be like with you comming into it without a special privledge, right, or ability which aids you in the social lottery. Make rules and regulations for society which benefit, mutually, everyone to the best of society's ability, and make it so that the social inequalities, which society must have, help those who need it most through situation and merit----plan the rules to accomodate those in special need circumstances. There must be some inequalities, which are necessary for the overall health and function of the society as well. For example, some need to get paid more and get more respect because of their intelligence, or the worth of their job. It is fair to give them more (respect and money) because of the benefit they give to society. If they didn't get that incentive, they wouldn't help society.

Everyone should gain access, fairly, to the basic needs as well as basic liberties, as best as society can provide.

This isn't really a good reading of Rawls. It's not horrid, but you wrongly impute a utilitarian position, and your interpretation of the OP and the veil of ignorance isn't quite right. The parties in the original position aren't persons per se; they are idealized rational agents, where rationality is used as it is in economics. This means that the parties are seen as self-interested, and possessing a mutual disinterest in each other's ends. That is to say that they want as much "stuff" as possible (using "stuff" loosely), and don't care how much "stuff" others have. They also have no information about the persons they represent or the demographics of their particular society, although the do have access to all the facts which are common to human life and human societies in general.

From the original position, Rawls claims that the parties would choose two principles of justice to govern their society, and a lexical priority rule governing them. Taken together, these principles are called "justice as fairness." The principles are: 1) everyone has equal access to the maximal scheme of equal liberties compatible with everyone else having the same access (fair equality of opportunity); and 2) inequality is permissible only if it is to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and attached to positions open to anyone. Rawls also gives justice priority over efficiency, defined as Pareto-optimality.

As an aside, I find it odd that so few people have heard of Rawls. He is without a doubt the biggest name in 20th-century political philosophy. Seeing as how political philosophy had been in a slump for some time prior to Rawls, that makes him pretty important.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-11-25 09:19pm

Big mistake here. Rawls is in no way a utilitarian; when he presents justice as fairness in TJ2, he takes a Kantian deontological approach. The move to political liberalism in the eponymous text drops the deontological approach (since he's no longer offering a comprehensive moral doctrine, but instead a political conception) - but retains some of the mechanisms that were originally derived from said position.

Utiltarianism isn't isolated from other ethical theories. Whatever actually produces the most funcitonal, healthy, happy society is utilitarian. Theoretically, a society, like ours, which is based on rawlsian justice, rights-based ethics, as well as deontology ends up being a greatest practical good, IMO.

The principles are: 1) everyone has equal access to the maximal scheme of equal liberties compatible with everyone else having the same access (fair equality of opportunity)

Now, in my view of Utilitarianism, I see that as making a very happy, healthy society, when used as a rule. It might not give the greatest happiness in every situation, but overall, what would a society be like if that weren't in place? I think it would be shitty.

As an aside, I find it odd that so few people have heard of Rawls. He is without a doubt the biggest name in 20th-century political philosophy. Seeing as how political philosophy had been in a slump for some time prior to Rawls, that makes him pretty important.

I think he is very interesting too. A lot of his ideas seem to make a better world.

I know he doesn't like the Utilitarians, however, but I believe if put into practice with other theories, it does go a long way to making a greater society. A lot of Ethical theories can be placed under utilitarianism. For example, it can even have a Deontological framework--whatever works best.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-11-25 09:19pm

Are you a big fan of Rawls?

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-11-25 09:22pm

This isn't really a good reading of Rawls. It's not horrid, but you wrongly impute a utilitarian position, and your interpretation of the OP and the veil of ignorance isn't quite right.

How so? Other than the Utilitarian outlook i see, the rest is really just a repeat of what my textbook says.

Frank_Scenario · Post by **Frank_Scenario** » 2004-11-26 12:24am

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:
This isn't really a good reading of Rawls. It's not horrid, but you wrongly impute a utilitarian position, and your interpretation of the OP and the veil of ignorance isn't quite right.
How so? Other than the Utilitarian outlook i see, the rest is really just a repeat of what my textbook says.

Well, your account of the OP and the veil had persons, rather than parties, or at least fails to make this distinction explicit - and it's one that's been the subject of a decent amount of spilled ink. You also didn't spell out what the parties in the OP know; you didn't say anything that is obviously wrong, but it's missing some important information. One thing that's very important are the priority rules, which you left out entirely; without them, Rawls doesn't have any way of dealing with tension between fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle. Finally, some of your language suggests that you think that people deserve things, like money or respect, for doing certain jobs. This is all well and good, but Rawls is a desert skeptic, and he'd disagree with you.

Utiltarianism isn't isolated from other ethical theories. Whatever actually produces the most funcitonal, healthy, happy society is utilitarian. Theoretically, a society, like ours, which is based on rawlsian justice, rights-based ethics, as well as deontology ends up being a greatest practical good, IMO.

You're emptying utilitarianism of any content. On your account, we might as well abandon any utilitarian notions, since they don't do anything.

You're also ignoring a fundamental issue. Utilitarian theories don't make distinctions between persons, whereas deontological theories do. This point of contention is especially significant when talking about justice. It also shows that the two are incommensurable. Rawls' discussion comes in §5 of TJ2.

I generally like what Rawls has to say, although I prefer his later work in Political Liberalism. I'm currently working with Henry Richardson, one of Rawls' students; he prefers the earlier Rawls.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-11-26 01:23am

As someone who supports the idea of social class distinction

What the fuck for?

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-11-26 03:50am

You're emptying utilitarianism of any content. On your account, we might as well abandon any utilitarian notions, since they don't do anything.

Well, despite that I really like Utiltarianism, I don't agree with several philosophers on what they deem the greatest good, or happiness for society,and I rather abhorr act utiltarianism. It's ok in some situations (IE when the rule can be broken and not cause trouble, paranoia, fear). I think that rules should be made for society to make it good. I can see some of Rawl's ideas made into rules.

I don't get how you mean abandon the utiltarian notions. The basic notion is do the greatest good and achieve the greatest happiness. I believe that to do this, we need a variety of beneficial social policies based on rights/justice.

I have noticed, from some, that there is a difference between utility justice and other forms of justice, and I just ask myself. WHich one is actually more utilitarian? Does one lead to more fear, paranoia and unhappiness? If so, I pick the one that does the least damage and gives the most utiltiy.

Well, your account of the OP and the veil had persons, rather than parties, or at least fails to make this distinction explicit

True. I didn't intend of making any specifics about people, just the general concept. I know I am missing some stuff on him, hehe. My textbook only does him for about 2 pages. Most of it is devoted to other theories, which I find odd, since he has some good ideas, don't you? Two pages wtf?

One thing that's very important are the priority rules, which you left out entirely;

Yes. I am not familiar with those. What are they?

Finally, some of your language suggests that you think that people deserve things, like money or respect, for doing certain jobs.

If that is not the case, than I agree yes, but my textbook honestly makes it sound like that when it says that inequalities must be in place to help those who aren't yet equal, but still provide the profit motive for society. What does he really mean, then?

You're also ignoring a fundamental issue. Utilitarian theories don't make distinctions between persons, whereas deontological theories do.

Well. Perhaps I can show you what I mean. In a traditional act utiltarian society, one would be able to violate the justice/rights of individuals whenever it suited, but i am more of a Rule Utiltarian. I believe that one society cannot functionaly operate with rights/justice violations on an average basis (rather only emergences or when the risk/benefit is appropriate)

I believe that the society which functions best is that that is the most happy,and I think a mix of fair justice (which some utilitarians overlook, and rights) makes society more functional and happier.

I try to imagine what a society would be like if the greater good didn't incorporate these other philosphical elements. It wouldn't be good, at all, IMO. People would be too afraid, paranoid, and the society would be rather dreary, and any respectable philosophy which focuses on the happiness of the most, I think should have them.

Generally, I think of the masses over the indivual, but i saw something, at least from our book, in Rawls, that I liked, and I sense that his stance could be very useful in bettering society. I guess that's just my brand of Utilitarianism. I saw people like Peter Singer and his brand of justice, and it's just insane; no one would do the shit he says, so it's totally impractical, and it wouldn't make many people happy. I mean. who is going to give away most of his money and live off of what he needs only? I also disagree with some Utiltarians when they say kill off 1 person to save 5 (in a hospital setting, for example-). I try to look at it from a macro-perspective--would it really be good, or just on the face of it? What would a society be like where you couldn't trust hospitals or doctors? What would society be like if there were no welfare or healthcare? It would suck, I think.

I don't think anyone can take an ethical theory as-is. There are just too many problems with them, but I think Utilitarianism is one of the most flexible. By its very nature it always leads to the best conclusion.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-11-26 03:54am

Finally, some of your language suggests that you think that people deserve things, like money or respect, for doing certain jobs.

Personally, I only believe this based on what I have seen from how capitalism works. People are happier and society works better when people have positive incentive, or motive.

What really confuses me, is that (inequalities in terms of profit-motive and respect for certain jobs) is exactly what the textbook says too. It could be wrong.

Even if that isn't what he says, or means, I believe it's in society's best utility-interest to have such a system of justice.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-11-26 04:10am

Secondly, economic and social inequalities are only justified if they benefit all of society, especially its most disadvantaged members.

That's a quote from a page on Rawls. How is that not utilitarian? The benefit all of society makes me think there are some Utility aspects to it. I know he is opposed to utiltarianism, but some things seem inadvertantly to do the greatest good.

Furthermore, all economically and socially privileged positions must be open to all people equally.

Again, this is also something that makes society much happier, better. If people know all the positions are open to them equally, it makes them more efficient, happier, than knowing that the opposite would be true, I think.

For example, it is only justified that a doctor makes more money than a grocery clerk since if this were not the case, no one would study and train to be a doctor, and there would be no medical care.

Since by not paying some people more or providine more respect, the result would be a shitty society in which no one would work to achieve anything, and society as a whole would definitly suffer. The only alternative is this, because the other choice seems to suck, so the utility principle wins out, by providing a system which gives the most happiness and is the best solution.

"The doctor's greater salary benefits not only him, but all of society, including the grocery clerk, since it permits the clerk to get medical care."