Harrekin
Well-Known Member
You mean you refuse to but could, 700 a week as a minimum wage is absolutely insane.
I voted for A btw, genius.
Context and reading comprehension...get some.
John Rawls Original Position
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
I voted for A btw, genius.
Context and reading comprehension...get some.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
$700/week = $2,800/month
Why can't you live on that?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Society A, it separates the men from the boys.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
And apparently the midgets.
The_Herban_Legend
Well-Known Member
You voted for society A but you are not intectually sound. You would make a measly 15k in that society with your education. Come to society B, we will see to it that people of your education and skill set, be it minimal, are taken care of and treated like human beings.
Last edited:
The_Herban_Legend
Well-Known Member
Because that would lower my standard of living. Why else?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I don`t know what a himan is but I`ll pass on the offer.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure you were clear about the directions of the OP. The purpose of the thought experiment is really to see what people believe is fair. If you have no way of knowing where you will fall, it's irrational to pick A and illogical to pick C. B is the most rational choice given the circumstances. I'll post Rawls' explanation this evening when I get a chance.
I'm not sure that's the same thing. "Can't" implies impossibility, "couldn't" implies you could if you so tried - including lowering your standard of living. You could if you wanted to, if you were required to. If you can't, you can't no matter what.
The_Herban_Legend
Well-Known Member
That was intented for @Harrekin but how does that saying go? If the shoe fits...?
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/black-africans-face-most-racist-abuse-in-ireland-says-report-1.2146079
I enjoy making you eat your words because one of the things we looked at at the ICHR was immigrants to Ireland. Moreover, clearly you're a bit racist since when I admitted a minority one of the first personal attacks you made against me was "His mother must've smoked crack" thereby implying I was an African American, which I'm not.
Now watch the Wee Little Harrekin try to argue back that it's just a distraction, he's really not that racist nor did he mean to imply it! Back peddle all you want, it's already out there.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I had a feeling that claim was dubious..
The_Herban_Legend
Well-Known Member
$2,800 a month? Lets remember those pesky taxes and deduct 25%. Now we are left with $2,100 a month. My house payment is much more than $2,100 a month. Do you want a society full of people barely getting by?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Sorry for the confusion, this is all after taxes. Taxes do not apply to this question. All take home.
I want a society of all people who can get by. I support a universal basic income
The_Herban_Legend
Well-Known Member
"Universal basic income" ??? Are you implying you support a universal minimum wage? Is it fair for minimum wage to be the same in NY as it is in Texas? Where does cost of living factor in?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
A universal basic income meaning an income that provides for the baisic minimum necessary needs of an individual. It will be different in NYC than it will be in Bismark because the cost of living is different.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"If you chose society A - perhaps because you think it would be great to earn $200,000 a year - then you are taking an irrational risk, according to Rawls. For you do not know (under the veil of ignorance) what your chances are of being in any of the three positions in the society. You do not know, for example, whether your chances of being in the highest income group are near zero or whether your chances of being in the lowest income group are greater than 50 percent. Your best bet, when you do not know what your chances are, is to choose society B. In this society, no matter what group you are in, you will do better than you would in any postiion in completely egalitarian society C. And even if you were in the lowest income group in society B, you would be better off than you would be in the lowest groups of either A or C. Choosing society B for these reasons is often called a maximin strategy; in choosing under conditions of uncertainty, you select that option with the best worst or minimum position.
The maximin approach has clear relevance to Rawls's principles of justice and his argument that they would be selected in the original position. Remember that to avoid bias, people in the original position must choose principles for their society in ignorance of the basic facts about who they are. They do not know the economic or social position they wil occupy - and they know that they might end up in the group that is worse off. Thus Rawls argues that rational self-interest will demand that they look out for the bottom position in society. If economic inequalities (some people being richer than others) would produce a better situation for the worst off than equal shares would, then it would be selected as a principle. For it ensures the best possible life for the individuals in the lowest group, which they know could be themselves. This is the rationale for the first part of Rawls's second principle of justice, which says that economic inequalities should be arranged to the benefit of the least advantaged.
Rawls also provides a corollary argument for his "maximin" principle, one that does not depend on the idea of the original position. Here he examines "accidents of natural and social circumstance," the random facts of where one is born and what capacities one is born with - which he says are neither just nor unjust, but morally arbitrary. If some are born into unfortunate circumstances, it is through no fault of their own but merely because of the arbitrary circumstances of their birth. Similarly, "No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favorable starting place in society." While society cannot eliminate these different starting places, a just society should not blindly accept such morally arbitrary facts - as does the warrior aristocracy imagined by Bernard Williams described previously. Rawls maintains that in a just society, those who have been favored by nature may be permitted to gain from their good fortune "only on terms that improve the situation of those who have lost out." Again, the idea is that economic inequalities can be allowed by justice, but only if these inequalities work to the benefit of society's least fortunate members.
The second part of Rawls's second principle concerns equal opportunity. If inequality of income and wealth are to be considered just, then society's institutions must provide an equal opportunity for those with the relevant interests, talents, and ambition to attain positions of wealth, power and prestige. For Rawls, social class distinctions should not prevent social mobility. As he explains, the point is not merely to guarantee formal equality and nondiscrimination, but to guarantee that everyone should have a fair chance at gaining access to social goods. "The expectations of those with the same abilities and spirations should not be affected by their social class." Rawls's primary concern is to limit the impact of social class. But the idea of fair equality of opportunity can also apply to racial and gender disparities.
Rawls's two principles would most likely be accepted by people who are brought up in modern democratic and liberal societies. But modern democratic societies are also pluralistic - that is, their people will have many different and irreconcilable sets of moral and religious beliefs. Rawls admits, in his later work, that pluralism is a problem. He acknowledges that in modern societies people have sharply different moral and religious views; there is irremediable and irreducible pluralism. Thus the only way that citizens can agree is by thinking of themselves as persons who want whatever persons in general would want and who do not bias the rules of society in their own favor based on their particular characteristics. But such an approach may not satisfy all those with diverse points of view on culture, religion, economics, and justice; libertarians and communists, for example may not agree with the procedures Rawls uses to derive his basic principles of justice. This substantial problem points back towards the issue of pluralism and relativism." - Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues [8th edition] MacKinnon/Fiala (p.207-209)
In other words:
The maximin approach has clear relevance to Rawls's principles of justice and his argument that they would be selected in the original position. Remember that to avoid bias, people in the original position must choose principles for their society in ignorance of the basic facts about who they are. They do not know the economic or social position they wil occupy - and they know that they might end up in the group that is worse off. Thus Rawls argues that rational self-interest will demand that they look out for the bottom position in society. If economic inequalities (some people being richer than others) would produce a better situation for the worst off than equal shares would, then it would be selected as a principle. For it ensures the best possible life for the individuals in the lowest group, which they know could be themselves. This is the rationale for the first part of Rawls's second principle of justice, which says that economic inequalities should be arranged to the benefit of the least advantaged.
Rawls also provides a corollary argument for his "maximin" principle, one that does not depend on the idea of the original position. Here he examines "accidents of natural and social circumstance," the random facts of where one is born and what capacities one is born with - which he says are neither just nor unjust, but morally arbitrary. If some are born into unfortunate circumstances, it is through no fault of their own but merely because of the arbitrary circumstances of their birth. Similarly, "No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favorable starting place in society." While society cannot eliminate these different starting places, a just society should not blindly accept such morally arbitrary facts - as does the warrior aristocracy imagined by Bernard Williams described previously. Rawls maintains that in a just society, those who have been favored by nature may be permitted to gain from their good fortune "only on terms that improve the situation of those who have lost out." Again, the idea is that economic inequalities can be allowed by justice, but only if these inequalities work to the benefit of society's least fortunate members.
The second part of Rawls's second principle concerns equal opportunity. If inequality of income and wealth are to be considered just, then society's institutions must provide an equal opportunity for those with the relevant interests, talents, and ambition to attain positions of wealth, power and prestige. For Rawls, social class distinctions should not prevent social mobility. As he explains, the point is not merely to guarantee formal equality and nondiscrimination, but to guarantee that everyone should have a fair chance at gaining access to social goods. "The expectations of those with the same abilities and spirations should not be affected by their social class." Rawls's primary concern is to limit the impact of social class. But the idea of fair equality of opportunity can also apply to racial and gender disparities.
Rawls's two principles would most likely be accepted by people who are brought up in modern democratic and liberal societies. But modern democratic societies are also pluralistic - that is, their people will have many different and irreconcilable sets of moral and religious beliefs. Rawls admits, in his later work, that pluralism is a problem. He acknowledges that in modern societies people have sharply different moral and religious views; there is irremediable and irreducible pluralism. Thus the only way that citizens can agree is by thinking of themselves as persons who want whatever persons in general would want and who do not bias the rules of society in their own favor based on their particular characteristics. But such an approach may not satisfy all those with diverse points of view on culture, religion, economics, and justice; libertarians and communists, for example may not agree with the procedures Rawls uses to derive his basic principles of justice. This substantial problem points back towards the issue of pluralism and relativism." - Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues [8th edition] MacKinnon/Fiala (p.207-209)
In other words:
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
That's an implication youre black?
See what I fucking mean?
Can't even call someone a crack head without being called racist in the grand ole USA.
Totally post racial...
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Did you notice in your infinite wisdom that "White Irish" is included on that chart?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Why do you put the little a with a circle, next to his callsign ? It`s looks stupid and you call people stupid, the shoe must fit.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Technology, how does it work?