|
| |
|
|  WorshipfulCruel | Apr 16, 2005 12:33pm | ...just trying to get a little discussion going--and also trying to test the waters to see who knows his/her stuff. >)
Pretty elementary stuff: What do you think about the compatibility/incompatibility of the two theorists' ideas? Until recently I'd dismissed Rawls as too conservative (and that's assuming that socialist tendencies actually move to the right, rather than the left, as is commonly mistaught), but I've recently had to give him a second look.
The maintenence of the individual at the expense of a system of entitlements still causes me to hesitate, though, so just out of idle curiosity, I'm wondering where any of you might come down on these ideas. |
|
| 
|  yngvee | Jun 7, 2006 11:42am | | I would definetely agree more with Rawls. To be honest, I have not read neither of them too much in detail, even though I should know them both. Tell me their basic ideas and disagreements in 5 lines... |
|
| 
Sponsor |  Morosoph | Oct 12, 2007 7:43pm | Rawls's big idea is the "veil of ignorance". That is, that a state of affairs should be judged prior to knowing what position one will hold within society.
From an (IMO sound) starting point, he then proceeds to make mistakes. He invokes the "maximin principle" to form a non-philosophical value that the very worst off should be the measure of progress. He also thinks that inequalities are only acceptable is the worse off individual can accept it, so that the jealousy of the lame would mean that the rest of us shouldn't be able to walk.
Naturally, he cannot mean this, so he's not arguing logically; he's appealing to emotional notions of justice and wrapping it up in faux mathematics.
He thinking isn't always so unclear though. For example, he holds that freedoms should only be removed in order to defend a greater freedom. Since this is his first principle, it does alleviate somewhat the contradictions that would otherwise apply, but Rawls is still somewhat incoherent.
I have read no Nozick (a philosophy group that I go to covered Rawls), so I can't comment upon him, but apparently, everyday notions of society - and I don't even mean socialism - are simply not part of his thinking.
I don't know enough to decide for sure, but I'd be inclined to say "neither"! |
| |
|
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
| |
|
Political Theory → Discussion