What Is It
John Rawls was one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century. In his book A Theory of Justice he articulated a concept of justice as fairness, which won many fans among liberals, and provoked important responses from thoughtful libertarians such as Robert Nozick. Ken and John discuss the life and ideas of John Rawls with Joshua Cohen, Professor of Political Science, Philosophy, and Law at Stanford University and co-author of Associations and Democracy.
Imagine designing a political state from scratch. Which individuals get which jobs? How much does each job pay? How are scarce resources distributed? In A Theory of Justice, American philosopher John Rawls articulated a method of answering such questions that he considered fair: Make prospective citizens decide the answers collectively, but orchestrate the decision-making process such that none of them knows which role they will occupy in the new state until the process is over. Rawls thought that putting prospective citizens under this veil of ignorance was a way to harness their self interest toward constructing a state in which even the least well off would live comfortably---for, since during the decision-making process nobody knows which role they will occupy in the new state, everyone wants to make sure that even the least privileged role would satisfy their needs if they happened to be assigned to it.
Rawls thought that this method would ensure that two principles of justice were fulfilled. The first, called the principle of equality, states that "each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all." The second, called the difference principle, declares that "social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions---first, they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society." More simplistically, every citizen should have his or her basic needs met, opportunities to satisfy more than those basic needs should be open to everyone, and no one should be allowed to satisfy a non-basic need if not doing so would benefit the least well off.
Joshua Cohen, a former student of Rawls and now a professor of political science, philosophy, and law at Stanford, joins John and Ken to discuss his teacher's life and ideas. According to Cohen, Rawls really lived his phlosophical ideals: There was a moral seriousness about him, and he always treated others with respect and as equals, no matter who they were. In line with this, Rawls thought each person should maximize others' political and economic well being, since this is a way of showing respect for them. One might say the system articulated in A Theory of Justice is a fleshing out of that thought.
Among professional philosophers, Rawls has enjoyed the rare privilege of being read by a broad range of non-philosophers, especially students of politics and law. Famously, Bill Clinton said that Rawls's teachings "helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself." From a Rawlsian perspective, how does the United States measure up these days---have we more or less implemented the principle of equality described in A Theory of Justice? Cohen thinks not: While the United States ensures political equality by extending voting rights and such to the whole populaiton, it still has work to do toward ensuring equality of opportunity and equal distribution of basic resources.
With Cohen, John and Ken make headway on many more intriguing questions about Rawls and his philosophy. Does Rawls's notion of well being have something to do with "subjective" happiness, or does it purely concern "objective" economic status? In a Rawlsian state, would competition in the market disappear? How does Rawlsianism differ from utilitarianism, according to which a state should, by whatever means, achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people? According to Rawls, humans have inalienable rights; but where do these come from---God, society, or somewhere else? What if a benevolent dictator instituted a political system that gave the same results as a Rawlsian state---would there be anything wrong with that, in Rawls's eyes? Did Rawls intend his theory of justice to apply internationally, or just at a national level? Might having one Rawlsian state among many non-Rawlsian nations lead to international inequality that otherwise would not arise?
- Roving Philosophical Report (seek to 6:15): The income gap between poor and rich has widened in recent years. During his campaign, President Obama won favor with some voters by promising to redistribute wealth more evenly. Zoe Corneli hits the streets to ask San Francisco residents whether they think the distribution of wealth in the United States is fair. Almost universally, people answer 'no'. One respondent thinks those who, like teachers, deeply influence children should have higher salaries. Another maintains there should be an economic "floor" (above rock bottom, presumably) below which no one should be allowed to fall. A third respondent, who lived through the Depression and worked hard to earn her current wealth, laments economic inequality but would be reluctant to have her own money siphoned off to those who have been less industrious and frugal. One respondent even thinks money should be abolished altogether!
- 60-Second Philosopher (seek to 50:14): Ian Shoales investigates a potential reductio ad absurdum of Rawls's difference principle, characterized as the rule that, after everyone's basic needs are met, someone's non-basic need should not be met if doing so would worsen the situation of someone else for whom that need were not met. Does this mean that someone should not be allowed to have advantageous physical attributes, since doing so would put others at a disadvantage? Or that the rich should not be allowed to take antidepressants, since doing so might make the poor poorer and, thereby, more depressed?
Friday, February 19, 2021 -- 8:35 AMRawls is the bedrock of
The very nature of humanity and the ecology of the earth is changing from the world of Rawls. Our relations with technology and ecology are going to define our best selves.
The U.S. Military is an interesting use case for the ignorant veil - though I wouldn't want to write that out too far without caveat. In short, the ranks, chain of command, soldiers, non commissioned officers and officers alike - have a Rawlsian nature where everyone's role is defined and monetized for the greater good.
Another interesting use case are the virtual societies like Second Life, the Sims and Minecraft where people sometimes literally buy in with an assumed equality void of cultural pretense.
This is difficult territory. Interesting to hear these older shows hit forward to current politics (we are currently going through the 2nd Impeachment of Donald Trump - where liberal, liberty and assaults on our overlapping consensus are being worked out.)
Fun times... Rawls helps but this is far from the final word.
Harold G. Neuman
Tuesday, February 23, 2021 -- 4:24 AMEnjoyed Rawls' tome on
Enjoyed Rawls' tome on justice read several years ago. Working on a treatment of truth, after reading Davidson. May share some of those thoughts, if essay is not published in he next two-three months. Query: has Philosophy Talk ever done a show on that topic? I have been incommunicado since March, 2020, due to the plague.
Wednesday, February 24, 2021 -- 6:28 AMWelcome back Harold! You
Welcome back Harold! You have been missed. I was thinking the worst (as is my bent) but this post is very well received and thought out.
I look forward to your essay. There are many PT shows and blogs on belief and truth but I know you know this. I will read Davidson in anticipation.
Harold G. Neuman
Friday, March 12, 2021 -- 3:32 PMThanks. It is good to be.
Thanks. It is good to be. Here, or anywhere...
Harold G. Neuman
Thursday, April 15, 2021 -- 6:42 AMStill waiting to hear from a
Still waiting to hear from a philosophy periodical on the truth piece. Thought about pitching it more widely but have not done so. There are a few remarks about the finished product in comments on another PT post. I'll try to retrace those and leave a reference here. Today,I heard news of a move towards expansion of the US Supreme Court, from nine to thirteen members. Somethiing Biden once called a bone-headed notion. I suppose the number thirteen has some basis and/or significance, but I don't know what that is. It would increase the federal payroll. I wonder if it would commensurately improve the justice system? Also, will Biden still think it bone-headed?
There is already one silent Sam associate justice on the court. What might be gained if there were more? Justice is already blind, right? I'm not sure it should also be silent. In law, we have the right to confront our accusers. With that proviso, we have some knowledge of what we are up against. There are problems aplenty in our republic. I think we ought to be leary of creating more of them. What say any of you?
Thursday, April 15, 2021 -- 10:21 AMHarold,
Derek Muller has a great vlog on planned obsolescence. - https://youtu.be/j5v8D-alAKE . It’s a problem but not one that supersedes the ill of the two-stroke motor and the western obsession with lawns or asphalt, for that matter.
Phones may be a part of that with certain companies. However, I can attest you can keep a Samsung going for over a decade if you are willing to suffer the feature loss that comes with G2/3/4/5 (the cause of CoVid!! - I kid) and so on obsolescence – which is not the conspiracy that Muller is necessarily referencing here.
The sweet spot for humanity going forward ( and probably since the dawn of humankind) is likely to make and tinker. In this case, with our coming AI and corporate masters. In that vein, I would encourage you to get a Pine phone next time for you or your family ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PinePhone ) and start to play. Librem5 is also worthy but a bit pricey. This fixable low impact open source concept is the space thinkers need to indulge in attacking obsolescence and their complacent Luddite ways.
I don’t mind talking about these things. But this is a stretch of a threadjack and a bit distracting from the project and OP.
Get a push mower. Start a blog. Go ad-free. Engage. I’ll join you there. But here, let us all join in talking about, as nearly as possible, the original poster – the OP. Freud in this case. Maybe Julian Jaynes in the future or Davidson.
You really should create your own blog. - https://www.theblogstarter.com/
Think about it.
Harold G. Neuman
Thursday, April 15, 2021 -- 3:09 PMThanks, Tim. The thumbnail
Thanks, Tim. The thumbnail sketch on my truth essay is in my last remarks on the Faith and Humility blog offered herein. It is only a teaser because the paper goes into detail about what truth is versus what it might be under a totality of circumstances. I play my cards close. A friend has called some of what I sent him, 'something profound'. He had nothing to gain from his remark. He is more successful than anyone I know. I did not say rich. For some, wealth is THE measure of success. Maybe so. But, my fellow senior citizen friend now lives in Ecuador. Still works, closing in on his eighth decade. PSDP: providence smiles on determination and purpose. In any case, he is among the five most interesting people I have ever known. Among those, my older brother, with whom the friend attended high school and an early year or two of college. Yes, I will consider the blog idea. Thanks again.
Friday, April 16, 2021 -- 1:53 PMIf you are eager to get this
If you are eager to get this work out there you might want to go another route ==> https://philarchive.org/
Blogs can take a lot of work. Maybe https://philarchive.org/ would be a better fit for this essay. It would have to be reviewed if you don't have an academic affiliation but it would be a lower bar than most other publishing sites and would get you a link. I lurk there.
Writing is hard. Focus is harder. Clarity is the hardest.
If your looking for credit then https://philarchive.org/ might be a good way to go. Once done it can be timestamped and you can move on with your other work.
Adumbrating is not communicating and can be debilitating.
Harold G. Neuman
Friday, April 16, 2021 -- 3:41 PMThink you have made your
Think you have made your point. So, let's leave it at that, shall we?
Harold G. Neuman
Saturday, April 17, 2021 -- 6:44 AMCredit where it is deserved;
Credit where it is deserved; : I reconsidered your advice, and THINK I understand what you are saying, vis_a_vis adumbration, a word heard, but not previously understood. That admitted, I can only imagine that we both have read our share of philosophy. And, if that is correct, we have also encountered adumbration before. Philosophy is rife with it. I'll check out the link. I do well-recognize the disadvantage of lacking academic credentials. Don't have to like it; but do recognize it.
Wednesday, April 21, 2021 -- 8:33 PMhttps://philarchive.org/help
https://philarchive.org/help/faq.html#archiving is an excellent site and a great way to get published. Preprints and open publishing are the way.
There is no dumb in adumbration either. It is ad-umbrate... to dance around like a shadow (that is how I meant it.)
Create a login on https://philarchive.org/. That is where I would put my thoughts. Holding it in limits my creativity. I often have to rethink a section or two, and then nothing gets done. Preprints are an accepted reality by all publishers for the most part.
Harold G. Neuman
Tuesday, January 25, 2022 -- 1:59 PMNot thinking too seriously of
Not thinking too seriously of justice anymore. Other issues, unmet and/or unresolved, render such
concerns less immediate. On a lighter, if more concerning note, my focus in this commentary is tv court justice. My wife likes these shows and admits they are mostly for entertainment. I am repelled by them, not because of their entertainment quotient (yeah, EQ, not IQ). My more immediate worry is with folks who take such presentations seriously, and good representations of justice as Rawls described it. I find the buffoonery annoying, if not dangerous and disrespectful. And, though not totally inaccurate, the emphasis on minorities and their escapades is disturbing. A man from Detroit says he tries to keep it real. OK. His stand-up comic banter is reprehensible: real in a comedy club, not so much in court. I suppose he is popular but I am not laughing much.
The elder statesperson of these shows is better but not much. She provides equal opportunity. For embarrassment. Shushing people, like an indulgent grandmother, she seems to forget she has a gavel. Her command of court protocol is impeccable--- it ought to be. But in her way, she is as ridiculous as my first example.
Finally, there is the younger judge who presides over a paternity court. She is sympathetic and empathic---presenting these sentiments with convincing sincerity. More like a social worker than a judge. Her courtroom is a vent venue; her role, counselor and referee. When all is said, the "verdict" of the court falls upon science. Specifically, DNA testing. She is, as a practical matter, a reporter. Her judgment means nothing.
There are places for almost everything. Television is not the one for court. Not unless it is a televised and actual court proceeding. John Rawls is laughing. Or maybe he weeps...