tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post3090668534238502543..comments2024-03-28T15:48:11.151-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: A REPLY TO A QUESTIONRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-75598095989459768582013-03-20T12:15:32.062-04:002013-03-20T12:15:32.062-04:00Dear Wolff, thanks for your answer! I guess I had ...Dear Wolff, thanks for your answer! I guess I had misinterpreted or misremembered your reference to biblical interpretation. The problem here is that the failure of his attempt to prove it doesn't lead Rawls to actually rethink his principle.<br />And of course it's not good enough for him that his principle is only intuitively attractive (I wasn't suggesting that in my comment, but I thought that you yourself rejected the principle since it couldn't be proved through a bargaining theory model). But I still think it's a 'great' principle. I actually think it's more rational, more 'fundamental' for an egalitarian society, than Marx's principle, although it sounds much worse, and although I agree with you that really enforcing would probably mean realising socialism (but again, I think maybe the biggest problem here is that economics is nothing like what it would have to be to make it possbile to understand what we have to do in order to create a Rawlsian society (sorry about the syntax)).<br />As for Nozick, the problem is precisely what he says and what his way of thinking represents, not who liked his work. So you have every right to cut him some slack, but I won't.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13337589981696719316noreply@blogger.com