against the state (4): rawls

[mmcrevey]

The difference principle is about efficiency....... Somebody has to be in charge for a society to function properly (or any group for that matter) And imposing limitations on the leaders governed by the people.

[LikeAGlassAsterisk]

....In Justice as Fairness: A Restatement I think Rawls specifies the issue of political power, through his notion of the equal value of political liberties. So, I don't think Rawls thought that political power had to be equally distributed so much as political liberties had to be of equal value meaning that one's wealth did not mean that one's political liberties were more valuable.

[AHBritton]

You make comments at various times that the people constituting the state have all the political power as if this statement needs no justification. If this is really true why are they in any way concerned with the general populaces perception of them?

[AHBritton]

If these people really have next to no political power, why do politicians watch polls and craft messages and campaign or do anything but exert their power in whatever way they want? This seems to me at the very least a vast oversimplification of the state and political life.

[mcreynoldspa]

On the distribution of political power: The entire delgation of animals was quite patient. Each animal was given his say. The badgers spoke, and the eagles, and the salamanders. Finally the rabbits, ears twitching, took the stage. One rabbit held forth rather eloquently on the beauty of equality among all animals. The host of animals listened patiently. Then one of the lions spoke up, "You argue for equality, but where are your teeth and claws?"

[Tiwaking]

That was remarkable

Could you please put a link to where you can buy your book in the sidebar please?

[miniat30]

Thank you so much. This video gave me some idea. I will buy the book...:)

[c0nzzz]

yeah... its a good start to Rawls and i get your angle in the sense that, i believe you're connecting this to anarchism, but a basic principle in Rawls is that inequalities are acceptable provided we all have access to those positions. Whether that be president or center for the Lakers. Provided we create a "fair" approach of determining who gets what (behind the veil) then its cool. So long as i get to challenge Shaq or Pao to a game of one on one then it is fair.

[cccombotron]

If the goods flow to the people in power, then Rawls theory would assume they are the weakest, otherwise it's no longer justice/fairness. The main problem i have with Rawls theory in particular is that he seems to leave out choice, but i'm not sure if it's Rawls or just any Social Contract.

[cccombotron]

I understand the point you're making, but i don´t think Rawls theory contradicts itself. It´s just highly unlikely for people with power to fairly distribute goods, i would agree. But Rawls not mainly concerned with corruption, which i think you´re addressing. Rawls idea is that inequalities in power should always benefit the weakest. If it does not it´s no longer justice accoring to Rawls standard.

[saintjoep]

Forgive me for being naif, I m just an italian student ... and sry 4 my english... here's my question in the next 2 posts...

[saintjoep]

I have a long question so I will use 2 posts. According to theory of Rawls the political system and consequently the politicians should take care only of the some aspects of the life. He calls these aspects "public reason", which is the conjunction of all common values of the different groups that constitute the state. What is not in common (private reason) shouldn't be a matter of the politics. If the politicians tooke advantage of their position to favour some groups rather then some others.

[saintjoep]

This act should regard only the public reason and, if the aspects concerned by this public reason had been previously established in a constitution, it should be easy for the disadvantaged guys to understand that the politicians are making shit. In this case Rawls forsees the civil disobedience of the citizens. Anyway... If the public reason concerns only the values that are common to the different groups in the society, why shouldn't the politicians respect them too? it's their interest too!

[benzino248]

This is a pretty good criticism of Rawls. I do take issue with the balance of political power. The difference principle states that inequality is allowed, if and only if, it benefits LAG. Inequality will benefit LAG here b/c government has the power to redistribute fairly. In his "Restatement," Rawls says that we will adopt Democracy. The power the people have are voting rights, which is guaranteed to all via P1.If the state is unjustly founded, or gov acts unjustly, your conclusion follows.

[beltrando1]

The central assumptions here is not well supported at all: "those who constitute the state have the political power, which is not shared amongst all the people". This is true only in the case that the state is not constituded in accordance to an idea of justice. It is true that there are more different ideas of justice, but indeed democratic states are provided with special procedures which enable to adjust aspects of the constitution.

[Distortion0]

Is any modern state in accordance with the idea of justice? I don't think so.

[rudyleyva]

whats up professor, can you do Habbermas, I'm a sociologist and I'd like to hear your two cents on him and the French post-structuralists while you're at it. Also any thoughts on Chomsky and Graeber's anarchist theories.

[Oktomatzi]

To the guy right below me, the guy who is speaking has a PhD in Political Philosophy, as such he is well versed in Classic Greek Philosophy as is evident by his clear and accurate depiction of John Rawls's philosophy which was clearly influenced by the likes of Plato and company. Just Because Dr. Sartwell doesn't agree with them, doesn't mean he hasn't read them. Next time do some background research before you throw out moronic pseudo-intellectual comments.

[annuitcoeptis2008]

on the other hand I am very amused to see that at this time in history even chimpanzzes are capable of making videos to post them on you tube. Too bad Darwin did not live long enough to see you. He would have been so proud of you.

[annuitcoeptis2008]

I really recommend that you read Plato, Aristotle and Socrates so you can understand the basics of politics. It is extremely sorrowful to see you embarrass yourself in this manner.

[crispytheok]

good luck reading socrates, dude.

[carlosariars]

Well I haven't just read Plato and Aristotle, but I've also done so in the original Greek. I cannot possibly see how you can judge the man on this video to have no understanding of the "basics of politics" on the basis of what he says. However, through your comment I can get a glimmer of what sort of person you are: a pretentious and arrogant one.

[annuitcoeptis2008]

If you have read Plato and Aristotle in the original Greek (I will pretend that statement is true, because I do not know you; and thank god I never will) you would have never bothered in sending me a comment and make a display of your level of ignorance for the whole Internet world to see. On the other hand, you actually sound amusing. You sound like you could be a nice pet. You are entertaining.

It will be so astonishing to have a pet that "reads" Plato and Aristotle in the original Greek.

[killtcomp]

why did you make a video about this?

[modallogic1]

You're confused. The original position is just a tool to test our evaluations about justice, it is not a historic occurance. Rawls states that the tool can be used for democ. or comm. societies. I believe it can be used for anarcistic societies as well. There is no right or wrong in the natural distribution of abilities or goods. What essentially is right or wrong is the way we choose to deal with these differences. A person with downs should be given a opportunity to lead a fulfilling life, etc

[TheMajorWorks1324]

isn't john rawls a cage fighter?

[crispytheok]

somehow, after all these years of teaching rawls etc, i managed to screw up the basic statement of the principles of justice. i'd just re-do the video, but i don't want to lose the comments, rik's response, etc. so i'm gonna put up an addendum.

[crispytheok]

maybe i will do something like that.

[Kaaru]

I really enjoyed this series. I must admit, I was looking forward to your defence of anarchism, which I was hoping would follow your arguments against its competitors. I guess I'll look forward to reading it in your book. :-)

[jimmyknewstub2]

you suck