tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post1458259599878804056..comments2024-03-29T03:19:09.227-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: A LETTER TO MY SON, PATRICKRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-29792946353694629352015-07-26T17:23:46.953-04:002015-07-26T17:23:46.953-04:00I think those are defensive maneuvres on his part,...I think those are defensive maneuvres on his part, but if you are right [and that view simply makes no sense at all of the article Justice as Fairness], then so far as I am concerned, Rawls' work would have no philosophical interest at all. I don't think he can have it both ways, and I really do think he wanted to.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-70043065565021554802015-07-26T17:08:11.630-04:002015-07-26T17:08:11.630-04:00Hi Robert: It simply isn't true that Rawls eve...Hi Robert: It simply isn't true that Rawls ever purported to derive his principles of justice from rationality alone. Throughout 'A Theory of Justice', Rawls states that although (1) the parties in the original position are to be understood as rational (in a game-theoretic sense) behind the veil of ignorance, (2) the veil of ignorance is supposed to model the sense of *justice* that people have in modern democratic societies, and that it is supposed to model a common conception of (moral) constraints that people in modern democracies can commonly recognize as reasonable constraints.<br /><br />Now, you may think this is a bad philosophical move (and I might even be willing to agree with you). But, it's important to be clear on what he did and did not argue. He never purported to derive justice from rationality alone. The notion that we share a *conception* and sense of justice, and that this conception is embodied by the veil ignorance, is crucial. The argument asks (1) what is rational, given (and constrained by) (2) a particular conception of what is reasonable (i.e. fairness).One Philosopher's Musingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17440693276773758553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-85383350293322964692015-07-25T11:29:50.802-04:002015-07-25T11:29:50.802-04:00Thanks for this. I think that the penny has finall...Thanks for this. I think that the penny has finally dropped. (My fault, not yours.) I couldn’t understand why someone with your views seemed so vehemently opposed to what looks like such a cool, egalitarian principle. But now I get it: your objection is that the Difference Principle does not flow logically from Rawls’ premises--the decision-making of rational, self-interested individuals from behind a veil of ignorance. Fine. But let’s not judge the DP by its bastard birth. Let’s consider it in its own right. And let’s ask ourselves, from what starting premises WOULD the DP flow?<br /><br />Increasingly we live in a society in which formal distinctions between individuals, based on tradition, race, gender, sexual orientation and so on, have been dissolved in the powerful, rationalising solvent of Capitalism--just like the handloom and the idiocy of rural life. Everyone is equal before the law. Everyone has a right to vote, to free speech, to develop themselves as they see fit, provided that they do not harm others in doing so. While there remains a strong social conservative movement, they are fighting a rearguard action, often because the logic of these principles, a logic that they for the most part accept, undermines so many of the things they hold dear. There is very little dispute around these core principles of legal and political equality. (In the controversies over voter suppression, for example, it is the FACTS—Is voter fraud really so much of problem that it needs to be “fixed”? Will measures to combat it result in infringing the right to vote?--and not the PRINCIPLES of every citizen having the right to vote, that are in dispute.) <br /><br />But of course we know that this kind of formal, political equality only goes so far. So what principle would people who are concerned about FULL, EFFECTIVE equality--including equal access to a material standard of living that is the pre-condition for human flourishing—choose, when, and this last point is important, they are starting from the position of an advanced, market-based Capitalist society, with its technology, specialisation and radical division of labour? The DP, no? The neoclassical economist asks: “Equality, but what about incentives?” The DP replies, “We’ve got ‘em if we need ‘em!” Someone else, not an economist, asks “What about merit? What about the fruits of my labour?” And the DP says “Show me, give me one good reason, why that should justify inequality. It’s like demanding that people who work hard get four votes instead of one!”<br /><br />In trying, and failing, to turn lead into gold, Rawls may have stumbled on a marvelous compound, the DP, with truly wonderful solvent properties.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-63786529769360904482015-07-24T17:58:21.498-04:002015-07-24T17:58:21.498-04:00I suppose I really will have to read it. Ugh. Oh...I suppose I really will have to read it. Ugh. Oh well, honor demands, I guess.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-62733472232828967062015-07-24T17:50:58.375-04:002015-07-24T17:50:58.375-04:00Please come us updated on your experience reading ...Please come us updated on your experience reading the Restatement. I own that book but haven't bothered to read it (yet).Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.com