I've always wondered if these interviews were partly scripted or rehearsed, or at least heavily edited. The guests always strike me as so well spoken and concise, I almost find it hard to believe that they're all speaking extemporaneously.
When you spend years with your nose pressed in books of theory you begin to adapt a necessary mental concision that increasingly presents itself in conversation. It's impressive to behold in a focused, discursive context, but your friends will find you to be a pedantic ass at parties.
I think they talk a bit before the interview - like talk show hosts do with their guests. Magee is also a professor of philosophy and his guests are also professors. When you teach a lot the ability to teach improves.
Agree 1000%. But the amygdala-dominant brains of the masses can't abide it. They need to see and hear an aggressive, vitriolic clash of personalities. Because their objective in witnessing the debate is not an increase in knowledge and understanding. Their objective is cheering on their tribe's repudiation of the opposing tribe.
Hart and dworkin are another set of legal philosophers that you may wanna give a read, actually pretty interesting the way they engage and respond to each other
I suppose the reason one doesn't hear of Nozick in popular discourse is that if you want to come to his conclusions, you can skip all the elaborate intellectual arguments and cite Ayn Rand.
Rand was a far superior philosopher. Nozick was highly capable of clear thinking, but he embarrassingly failed to even restate Rand’s theory of ethics when he took on the topic.
@@sybo59 Rand has no system of ethics. It’s just egoism, out of which doesn’t follow a respect for freedom at all. If I was an egoist, the last thing I’d be concerned about is personal freedoms.
Please upload more video, i have been searching the video that you upload about professor from University of Warwick if i correct, discussing about Epistemology "How can we know that we don't know" please i really need the rest of the video about interview like this. Thanks!
@Khuno Yeah, that’s what I would’ve thought too, but it doesn’t really seem to fit with what else was said. Magee himself says that it is a position that is held by some serious people, which Dworkin affirms, and even seems to have particular people in mind.
a few years ago a chilean politician Camila Vallejos from the communist party answered a question about it, she pretty much said so. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ieshsQJaPG0.html
He’s blatantly misrepresenting Rawls’ argument to be that people DO choose to structure their societies based on the original position. Rawls’ argument, as I understand it, is that the most just society WOULD be based on the original position, not that our current society is structured that way.
I like the characterization of wealth redistribution as “taking from the middle class to give to the lower classes”, as if the idea of redistributing wealth from the top 1% is just out of the question.
He was using that as an example precisely because it is NOT the standard example of redistribution. He’s demonstrating the radical nature of rawls’ principle that any change (ANY change) should benefit the least well off. Not benefit the greatest number, not benefit the overall opportunities…but the least we’ll off solely. So even if you fuck over the middle class and it helps the worst off…that is just. The fact that you found it counterintuitive should have supported that it’s a good example
@@MrJustSomeGuy87 That is completely ignoring the premise of the original position from which it stems. Rawls’ “original position” was the position that a rational person would take if they did not know what situation they would be born into. He said that given that original position, you would have to conclude that any policy should benefit the least well off. Not that it would benefit ONLY the least well off. Why not just go all out and argue that grinding up the wealthiest people each year and feeding them to the poor would benefit the least well off, so therefore Rawls would support that. That’s a ridiculous example, but it illustrates the point. Would a rational person choose that for society if they didn’t know the circumstances of their birth? No, obviously not. And no rational person would agree in their original position that the middle class be fucked over to help the poor, as you are very likely to be born into the middle class. The same cannot be said for the rich as a modest redistribution drawn from their wealth is not going to push them into poverty, as it may for the middle class. Therefore more people would support redistribution from the rich as that is a risk they would be willing to take if it ensured that they can still manage should they be born into poverty.
@@TheCommonS3Nse your response doesn't make sense. As to the obviously wrong "if grinding rich would benefit", for Rawls that's a non starter because it violates principle 1, basic rights The second principle doesn't necessitate that the middle class will be made poor. Clearly if they were, poorer than the poorest, they would then become the most worst off, and then justice would center around them. The comment above is accurate about why they choose middle class for sake of argument - it's to distinguish from mere utilitarianism, which Rawls is distinctly arguing against, for a comprehensive alternative.
@@Delicoms I made no claim that redistribution from the middle class would make them poor, only that it would have a material impact on their lives that it would not have for the rich. Back to the original position, if I was choosing a system that I would be born into, I would not choose one where the burden of supporting the poor falls on the middle class and not the rich. I think that's a fairly universal principle given that most developed countries have a progressive income tax and not a regressive income tax or a flat tax. It would be inaccurate to describe a progressive tax structure as "redistribution from the middle class to the poor", as most of the redistribution would be coming from the wealthy. Describing it that way doesn't offer any "distinction" from utilitarianism. It just creates a straw man that is easier to argue against. It's a scare tactic to convince people that anything that helps the poor must necessarily have a negative impact on the middle class, when that is clearly not the case.
The belief that you can fund the welfare state by taxing the top 1% is one of the oldest lies that populists have been telling forever. People keep buying it because most of them don't bother to do the math, but intellectuals are usually not as easy to manipulate.
@@ekekonoise Nietzsche has the worst moral theory ever, and completely misinterprets history for the sake of his own argument. If you actually think that might makes right, you are not a good person. I don't want to climb a ladder to better crush others, thank you very much. I believe that the strong should protect and serve the weak as a duty, and if that is a "slave morality" then I will gladly take it, since a master is nothing without his slave. Giving to others gives you power over them, and that power is virtuous. Using power for your own gains at the detriment of others is, and will always be immoral
Rawls' original position was far ahead of its time. Called 'ridiculous' at the time and probably still seen as far-fetched to some today. However, I think we know enough about biology and psychology to say, that the original position is in fact the position we are in at birth: we can't choose our genes, socio-economic class, culture, parents and their values, skin colour, and the list goes on.
Even (American) Republicans would have the world believe that they support the restriction that any inequality benefit the worst-off in society. The manifestations of this belief of theirs are in several forms, such as ‘Trickle Down Economics’ and the ‘Laffer Curve’.
It's not saying you could literally not know them. It's saying imagine it. This is good exercise for your imagination and it looks like you could use it.
Anyone who takes just the arguments both the men make would stay on Nozick's side. I'm actually surprised that many people are simping for Rawls in the comments. You don't even have to be a libertarian to notics that Nozick just tore apart many of Rawls' propositions
@@dann6067 thanks... Though I must say that both have a remarkable semblance... I had seen Rawls's picture on the Google and that too of when he was older ... So maybe that's why I assumed it might have been him..Thanks for the correction anyways👍
The arrogance of academia knows no bounds. Look at the homeless and destitute in Rawls’ world after decades of his theories being studied. The proof is out and the book is quaint not practical.
