This script to this video is part of... - The Philosophy Vibe 'Political Philosophy' eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe9 - The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics and Political Philosophy' available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
Agreed!! This has been my go to channel every week in my ethics class. I am glad I stumbled across this channel week 1. I love the argument for and the counter argument. It has helped me take a stance each week and score 10/10 in every one of my posts and discussions.
One of my criticisms of this theory is that some may not only lack the same "Primary Goods" presented, but they may also have other primary goods. As for myself, one of my "primary goods" may be (The Bible's definition of) Righteousness. The Original Position relies on the Veil of ignorance, and the Viel of Ignorance relies on ridding our definitions of good and bad whilst still retaining some sort of rationally values. These values can change and vary, thus, the Original position wouldn't work. A criticism against this however may be that the viel of ignorance simply covers all but the presented primary goods for no particular reason. Great vid!
am i the only one that is like ....... why would you need to be concerned about "the least advantaged" if you can just distribute resources properly like .... am i not getting this?
im reading the book. and in my total honesty , altough he defines rules should be publicly comprehensible he forgot that he should also make his own book as publicly comprehensible as possible.
Now I´ve got honest critique on Rawls´ Theory. I would argue, that because behind the vail of ignorance we are ignorant and have no predispositions and understanding of our own individual culture, we are, all that are there, one single Person. For we are equal in everything, we have nothing, that makes us different. So, in fact behind this veil one person could represent us all and there would be nothing to argue about. You see, there is no need to argue different approaches to society when we are all the same behind the veil and everything we conclude is predetermined. This would mean, that Rawls passively assumed, that there had to be one true and good form of government, which we must all apply to this just and fair society. In conclusion, he missed a major flaw in his theory. Please correct me, if I am wrong. (I apologize for any grammatical and or linguistic error. Englisch is not my first language)
I think some of the specifics of Rawls' thought experiment are muddy. But, it is still worth considering for the simple fact that no one chooses his or his birth, so no one should be severely punished for it
Well this was definitely eye-opening. Personally, I think that no particular system can be perfect and the best off we'll ever be is by giving the ruling powers as less control over the population as possible and doing the best we can for rights and equality through social movements. Even for addressing poverty, we can, instead of implementing socialism, which, as mentioned in the video, wouldn't incentivize entrepreneurship, leave that to people who are rich to fund shelters and centers and whatnot. I know not everyone will do this but the presence of inequality would honestly be necessary if we're going to allow for equal opportunity and a just society.
This is my favorite youtube channel! Amazing video guys! I'm curious to know how Rawls argued to maintain his ideas in line with his 'equal liberty principle' because I always imagine that to achieve this thought about justice you need to use certain means to achieve the ends, and in my opinion, inevitably will fall in contradiction with liberty principles. However, you guys did a great job! Thank you for the video!
Hahahaha bro i just thought of something hilarious for your channel. It would be hilarious if you throw in some comedy where the characters get offended and beat each other up and then it goes to like a retake shot and they have bruises all over their face and they continue the debate. Just sharing ideas to spice things up
I like how Rawls was literally like "See my plan works in a world that I made up with arbitrary characteristics that happens to fit everything I need "
I would foment a revolution on general principle if we ever had an actual society based on this seriously misbegotten 'veil of ignorance' paradigm. Doesn't matter if I was rich or poor, I'm not standing for this. For the record, I'm poor, or at least I sympathize with the poor in any socio-economic philosophical musings, and even the eminent John Rawls, whoever he is, can't help but tap his inner Ayn Rand and worry about the forgotten, forlorn genius 'inventor' who will sulk in his room and withhold his gift from society unless he gets to be as rich as God. Taken straight from the pages of Atlas Shrugged.
What my professor also mentioned is that in Rawls’ Original Position the individuals have no access to probability rates. So they wouldn’t know about the probability to end up in a certain social class, etc. and also Rawls said that they wouldn’t want to take any risks so that’s why they wouldn’t gamble.
all political philosophies have to start with some foundational presuppositions, a lot of these videos immediately challenge against the presuppositions so I find its kinda silly.
Ok so this makes sense if you are still allowing for certain assumptions being considered true. I would argue the assumption that competition is not human nature and is in contradiction to all of nature as well. Life cooperates and the source of human suffering is that we live a lifestyle in a culture that forces competition and divides people causing social isolation and the degradation of society. We build all our civilizations on that assumption and that's why they keep falling.
Iha nebe dg ita iha ba, rawls fiar katak ita hare ba elemento sira iha ita nia sociedade, no ita sei hare injustica. Sei iha buat barak mk la justo. Hnsan: tratamento ba ema la hnsan, hare ema la hnsan, no ema ou grupo balu halao exercicio do poder no controlo ba ema seluk nbe kik liu. Ne hnsan caso/prblma bot ida iha historia humanidade nian, quanto mais iha passado. Tamba nee hau fiar laiha ema ida mak bele dhn nia moris iha sociedade ida completamente justo no igual, equitativo .
Awesome vid but man Rawl's concept of gambling = irrationality is egregious. Even chess AIs, which are effectively all-knowing in their field, make calculated risks. Would he consider one of the least emotional and most rule-based machines of humanity irrational?
12:34 - The stakes don't even have to be as high as slavery/servitude. Any gamble where the upper majority would benefit a little at the (small) expense of the bottom minority would cast doubt on Rawls' theory (e.g. the bottom 20% of society being taxed an extra $1 so the top 80% can all have an extra 25¢). Does Rawls have a good reason to object to even minor gambles like this?
Rawls theory Well explained. Yet the liberty policts could only be possible when there exists less or null distinction and occurance of 'rich' 'poor' entities successfully implemented in every major/minority aspects.
@@PhilosophyVibe I'd be interested to see your explanation (and especially criticism) of Nozick's political philosophy (in *Anarchy, State, and Utopia*); specifically, how it criticises & differs to Rawls. Even within ASAU, Nozick's tangents are diverse (his most well-known contributions to philosophy, the Utility Monster and the Experience Machine, are more about utilitarianism than political philosophy). But I think some good topics to focus on are: - his case for the minimalist state (as opposed to anarchy, or the welfare state), which is the main point of ASAU and his disagreement with Rawls - his Entitlement Theory of Justice - the arguments he uses to support it (e.g. Wilt Chamberlain argument) - maybe some of his other less-talked-about-but-intriguing political thought experiments (e.g. Tale of the Slave, Demoktesis). But ofc it's up to you to focus on what you think is most worthwhile to discuss. The book touches on so many different topics that it's impossible to do all of them justice. But if it's anywhere near as good a summary as this video on Rawls was, I'll be pleased regardless.
The problem with the guy on the right argument is the original position is still a gamble so it is kinda smart to try to gamble on chart 2 but I really did the guy on the right argument that I would side with him but I can understandably someone would choose chart 2
Yes, "one of the most influential works on modern politics" that none of the candidates standing at my last local election had even heard of. They can all spout the party line but have no idea of the thinking behind it. If only we could come up with theories that actually work in practice, we would be able to make progress rather than just talk about it. This is such a key topic.
Rawls' theory has been very influential if one looks at modern constitutions across the world. For example, the constitution of South Africa and subsequent constitutions designed after it.
Yes I agree, rather like the bible has been very influential if one looks at constitutions and law making across the world. My point is that it doesn't seem to have any influence of note upon the behaviour of the average politician.@@gugulethudube2249
I agree with Rawls to some extent but my objection is that the principle of the original position and the veil of ignorance is not pragmatic since we can not use it in real life. How can we get everyone to be oblivious about this just and fair way of negotiation? I think it is not possible.
How does it make sense that they prioritize the lowest class, this is just hedging your bets but there can be another version where there is more net wealth but the lowest class is worse off. I think it makes more sense to take the earnings of each class times the probability of getting in each class then add all of them together and which ever one has the highest number has the most overall wealth nomatter the distribution, this also is completely ignoring class mobility wouldn't the best thing for lower classes be to make as many opportunities and the best chance as possible for classes to reach higher classes, with the added benefit of increasing overall wealth as much as possible.
