POLITICAL THEORY - John Rawls
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- How do you get a society that provides basic decent services to all citizens? Political theorist John Rawls had a good idea, and it was called 'the veil of ignorance.'
Enjoying our RUclips videos? Get full access to all our audio content, videos, and thousands of thought-provoking articles, conversation cards and more with The School of Life Subscription: t.ly/uX1sG
Be more mindful, present and inspired. Get the best of The School of Life delivered straight to your inbox: t.ly/mpNeq
SOCIAL MEDIA
Feel free to follow us at the links below:
Facebook: / theschooloflifelondon
X: / theschooloflife
Instagram: / theschooloflifelondon
CREDITS
Brought to you by www.theschoolof...
Produced in collaboration with Mike Booth
/ somegreybloke #TheSchoolOfLife
When we were first introduced to Rawls and the "veil of ignorance", our teacher explained it with a simple allegory. Imagine it's your birthday and your parents throw a party for you and your friends. When the time to cut the cake comes, your mother tells you "Now, you can cut the cake in whatever way you want to; however, you cannot choose the slice that you'll get to have.". Maybe you'd like a bigger slice of that cake, but since you don't want to risk getting a small slice, you just decide to cut equal slices for everybody.
Perhaps it's rather pointless to post this here, but I thought it was an interestingly easy way for even children to understand this concept. WELLP. Have a good day.
Nice allegory
thank you for your comment and being honest i only understood the video from the example you gave.
Depends on how hungry you are.
Fantastic!
So, think about what you would want for you. Then, make them accessible for all.
Being able to sum up an entire philosophy in 6-8 minutes is really impressive, and your work is exceptional. I would really appreciate something on John Locke, another cornerstone on the formation of government and State of Nature. Accordingly, something on Nozick would be great as well. Thank you for your works!
Well, it is not the most complicated of theories out there so explaining is pretty quick. You mentioned Locke and a large part of theory of justice is to find evidence and collect data on how society is unfair, where Locke would say look at "human nature" and consider his own toughts on it as enough evidence. Still, Locke, Hobbes and others layed the groundwork for Rawls's theory
I guess I'm insane then because what I ultimately want is a just society that punishes bad decisions and rewards good ones. You know like one where become a single mother is acknowledged as a bad thing and discouraged rather than subsidized, but support is offered by local communities which can withdraw it for more bad behavior. Sometimes the most loving thing you can do is let someone experience consequences.
The problem with that is what makes you decide what is bad or not and how it should be punished.
Being an amateur in this area, I wonder the thought of the veil of ignorance applying to those who happen to see the poorest or the worst conditions, or even happen to work their way up in society, how the veil would apply to them if it did so differently then the initially privileged?
Exactly
لجون راولز كتاب هام جدا هو نظرية في العدالة و صدر عام 1971 كان مبشرا حقيقيا بحركة إحياء مهمة في الفلسفة السياسية
المصدر كتاب مختصر تاريخ العدالة لديفيد جونستون
But I thought we were all born with an equal ability to achieve reasonable happiness?
I love this channel! John Rawls is my favorite political philosopher hands down!
Estoy meses tratando de entender la filosofía de Rawl pero no logro hacerlo, ayuda
nobody ever says anything about how in order to make life "fair" you have to turn the world into a prison camp
they ignore that part
the veil of ignorance handy for that too
We're all fair when the world's on fire.
Hearing you talk about Alan Watts would be very interesting Alain. He was the first philosopher I really developed an interest in and his ideas helped me get through some of my roughest times in high school. You were the second philosopher I read up on, starting with the Consolations of Philosophy. I'm actually in Germany right now trying to develop my German enough so I can read Nietzsche, who I was introduced to through your work. Watts would fit well under your eastern philosophy category, and while the content of what he talks about isn't original to him, the way in which he explains eastern thought is very unique.
"But we have a hard time explaining our sense of injustice"
"Eat the rich!"
An ideal society =/= a functioning society. Plato understood this with his Kallipolis: it was not ideal for the serfs, but it functioned best for society's flourishing.
@just your local neighborhood commie Explain to me the value of diversely skilled/abled people all suffering equally under communal living > the cream rising and improving standards for all, including the runt?
Extraordinarily, unfathomably based.
What about a video on Anarchism? To show people it is not mayhem, but a legitimate and well-thought out (imo) alternative. Keep it up!
The School of Life! Can you guys do a video on F.A. Hayek?
John Rawls stays one of the most inspiring philosopher known to me. Love this video, thanks!
The thing is you can use a negative (the usual) or positive (unusual) slant here.
The negative is the 'what if I'm poor' path and to deduce from this fear the need for the welfare state and the state, because, of course, good schools, infrastructure, hospitals and other 'public goods' can't be produced any other way than through a coercive monopoly on the use of force (i.e. the state).
The alternative:
Taking Rawls's 'original position' even the floating baby thing will be conscious of certain facts if it takes the time to consider its position: 1) we are each born into a state of self-ownership; 2) inequality is a manifest fact of nature (i.e. we're all born with different IQs, genetic traits, etc); and 3) this inequality is outside of the moral universe (i.e. one can't help being born smart or tall) and therefore no one is responsible for being born such and has no moral obligation because of the fact.
Taking the positive or 'optimistic' slant on things and considering the aforementioned, couldn't the preferred principles in the new society be the non-aggression principle (NAP) and free trade? If everyone is ignorant of their own abilities and traits, but are also aware that there are such differences in abilities (see (2)) wouldn't it be in their interests to ensure no one can steal their resources and violate their self-ownership and property rights?
Since they could be talented or skilled in some way, they could be somewhere between dirt poor and ultra rich, as most people are, wouldn't it make sense to NOT have a coercive state that taxes (i.e. steals) your income? In a veil of ignorance, individuals might decide that the non-aggression principle is preferred, with free associations and trade creating a far better society.
Me²
Ah, great analysis.
Not really. It would be perfectly rational to not design a society in which the government took 99% of your income, then spent it all on cigars and hookers (which seems to be what many fundamentalist libertarians think is happening), but it's perfectly rational to design a society in which you accept that you will lose some of your money, but in exchange you will be secure regardless of what position you find yourself born into. And of course we now know that free trade doesn't create a fairer society in and of itself anyway, although it has its place - the evidence is mounting all the time that neoliberal policies are making the world quantifiably worse for most people. Reliance on markets creates massive injustices, and the simple fact is that societies sometimes have to intervene. In a society which relies solely on markets, there are no rights at all, only "opportunities", which are often meaningless abstractions. If, for example, we had to pay for education, it would cease to be a right, and some people would no longer have access to it. Quite aside from that clearly being an unfair state of things - as it makes a child's opportunities contingent on the economic success of their parents - we now know that publicly funded education pays off for society as a whole, because it increases the productive capacity of the workforce. That's just one example of why a system with some level of taxation is objectively better.
Just as a side note, equating taxation with theft is pure hyperbole, and I'd like to see a world in which people protected their property without the use of state-funded police and legal services. In fact I wouldn't like to see that world, because it sounds fucking awful.
I could say it about the UK right now that I wouldn't of minded were I was born due to governmental reasons but part of the issue is what the people around you are going to act like and you can only control that to a certain degree through state without making the conditions repressive and unfair to others and to lead a society towards rebellion and degradation the balancing act is the hard thing and something we aren't sure and can't agree on how to master.
Really nice work, but please include some ladies: Hannah Arendt, Martha Nussbaum, Seyla Benhabib, Simone de Beauvoir, Judith Butler, etc...
Happy 100th birthday John Rawls on today 2/21/2021
Do everything at once and improve society through the public sector and do not only depend on the private sector. Social Democracies such as Denmark and and Norway are the happiest countries in the world
I'll take freedom over "fairness" anyday.
+Emily Haynes must not have honestly done the thought experiment then, shame...
My favourite American philosopher!
If you want to talk about poverty Scottsdale and Salt River Indian reservation borders each other the poverty rates of the reservation are twice as much as they are in Scottsdale or poorer more middle class Mesa. The policies of the indian reservation are more redistributive. They receive free health care & free university education. Yet the reservation is twice as poor as the cities they surround.
+David Williams what an earth shatteringly simplistic and moronic assessment of the situation. I am enlightened
Anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Re distributive NATIONS such as Sweden, Germany, Iceland, and other northern European democratic socialist states weathered the financial crisis of 2008 the best and have some of the highest qualities of living in the world. The salt river reservation can only do so much as they rely on funding partially from the US government and are partially restricted by its laws. This is too small of a sample to prove anything other than a single city cannot do much to change the effect of policies of its national government.
Steven Reynolds Germany Sweden states are not socailist they are some of the most free market countries in the world with social welfare states. When you rank all countries from most free market to least free market Canada and the US Japan South Korea and most of Europe all are some of the most free market countries in the world. France is not and France is a heavily regulated heavily taxed country and does not have the flexible labor markets of northern Europe and their outcomes which are not a surprise to anyone does not have the same economic output of those in Northern Europe or other parts of the developed world.
The reason why they weathered the 2008 financial crisis better than the Americans because they do not subsidize home loans like the Americans do. They are more neo-liberal in that regard not less.
The indians are restricted by it's laws... exactly laws and institutions matter. Their laws restrict ownership of private property therefore they higher levels of poverty. Democratic socialist countries like Germany Sweden do not have restrictions on ownership of private property and are. Venezuela does have heavy restrictions on prices and ownership of private property and it's The sample is too small. all Native American groups are desperately poor. Mexico has been socialist the Mexican workers leave their country and work in the US and they have had great success. It's the laws and institutions that matter.
vadllens01 It's not a simplistic assumption that the ownership of property and incentives matter. Native Americans have living standards that are a national disgrace and close to those in the developing world.
Ghonosyphlaids No i am not voting for Trump. Again it's the economic system that matters. They are marginalized because of socialism. They are marginalized because they don't have the right to create their own business. The Tribe decides which businesses can and cannot be in the reservation by some central plan. What is clear is that you would rather engage in name calling and you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Very good! I am going to say to my mother theses ideas. She studies Law.
for the theory of Justice......John rawls is my favourite.
Hell yeah brother!!!!
Plz Make Videos on Famous Lawyers and their Philosophy
I love the veil of ignorance. I try to use it every chance I get.
Making our societies "fair" seems to just be a push for hemogeny and collectivism. Who gets to define what is fair? Instead of equal opportunity, academics like this dream up total equality and sameness. The goal is to eliminate alienation and to eliminate injustice, but these goals are impossible. Therefore, we have to work with what we got. The drive to make people the same, to make people start off with the exact same amount of money, or whatever it might be, is equivalent to stealing from a certain group of people in order to elevate a different group of people. How can this be considered fair at all? A theory of justice such as this results in utopian delusion and communism, with genocide not far behind. "The common good" and "fair" is often a tactic used by those in power to abuse their authority and impose their agendas upon everyone else. I still have to read Rawls, but these are the basic results that I am getting from the description of the video.
Hi, Great channel, Can you please make a video on Richard Rorty and his book Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature ?
Can you please make a video of Robert Nozick's philosophy? Greetings from Chile :)
Who was the guy from school of life who said that in the United States class stratification was less obvious than in the UK, it was in one of the school of life videos that I watched a while ago.
The shoe on the other foot test
So... the great achievement of Rawls was to... get invited to have a lunch next to the President?
lol i think it was a bit more than that.
Great video! I would have however, preferred it if you instead compared the child of an orthodontist in Scottsdale Arizona, with 'a single mother from the rougher bits of Eastern Detroit' , and not the 'offspring of a black single mother'..
My goal in academia: do something valuable enough to the point when then School of Life makes a video about it.
@@evan2173 Thanks for making this comment. I forgot i ever wrote this. It took me back to my old ambitions. A few sparks left, still.
Academia has never done any valuable service to society btw
Dear @@dipro001 , since we have very similar aims, I would like to invite you to my education reform group!🤝
discord.gg/YMWSfX34
@@arminius6506 Unfortunately that's how things have turned out unfortunately in Academia🎓.
Its policy-makers and the adminstrative bodies tend to focus more on profit than on learner's individuals needs. The use of bundeled knowledge🧺 to sell as an product has been deeply segegrative with degree systems🗞 and credential inflations📈 that its in a crisis.
It was once a body that seeks to expand the pinacle of human knowledge🧠, promoting progress for individuals👤 & societies👥 but with such cooperate💸 & profit-driven motives💰 replacing over these, its evident that having a new system would be necessary.
A system that goes in addressing these, focusing on bringing out individual gifts/sparks🔅 & life-purposes❓ than of grades🔢🔡 & institutional expectations🏛.
It would be a dream to have it and for me, I'm working on a Vocational System⭐ that could do just that which has the potential to be true🙏.
@@arminius6506 Thats a highly questionable statement i'd say
There seems to be a lot of confusion on the position that Rawls takes, probably because the video is so short. YumeYume commented about a cake example, where everyone might get an equal slice. This isn't a pure representation of Rawls. Rawl's theory acknowledges that everyone will be getting different size slices of cake, but the slice of cake that is the MOST important is the smallest slice. Make the smallest slice as large as possible and you're golden. But wouldn't that make every slice the same any way? No, not if you consider disabilities, children, or elderly. These people will generally not receive the largest slices of cake on their own merit, so aid will be given to them to "make their slice bigger." Your small business hit rock bottom and you're bankrupt? The "original position" will create policies to give aid to you to allow you to pick yourself back up.
I feel like the video was somewhat misunderstood when implying Rawls is a solution to individual unfairness. Rawls is only concerned with societal fairness, however prioritizes the least advantaged in society. Sometimes it makes the most sense to give someone a big slice if it will boost the size of someone else's.
I commented something on those lines in the YumeYume post. I agree with you.
I agree with you that Rawl's had a focus towards the individuals that are at a disadvantage in society. However, your interpretation of the cake sounds differently from the video. What you said "Make the smallest slice as large as possible and you're golden" sounds more like appreciation for the smaller things in life. But Rawl was saying that people ought to look at life from both sides of the grass because you don't know where you're going to end up. But who is going to actually want to pick the smallest piece of cake? Who wants to be poor? If you are poor, you're more likely to take advantage of the aid that is given to you but who would willingly choose that life?
Chinesegirl if you actually read “Theory...” you will see that Rawls has two (1: liberty, 2a & 2b: difference) principles that guides his hypothetical contract theory. And 2b is a “maximin” principle, saying that one shall always maximize the benefits of these least well-off. So regardless of the veil of ignorance, there WILL always be some that are least well-off, there will never be pure equality. This is due to the fact that we have natural endowments vs challenges (for example strength or grit vs disability) that will not magically disappear even though equal opportunity (2a) is given to all.
Another thing: Rawls probably wouldn't say people under the veil of ignorance would think about Switzerland or Denmark as models for what they want. He clearly states that in a capitalist welfare state there is still a division between those who own the means of production (thus more access to positions of power and representation) and those work don't own the means of production (and have lesse chance to achieve positions of responsibilities in society in general) He states the achievable utopia would be, in my loose terms, a full democracy where the means of production are in the hands of the workers (either in a socialized scheme or in a market scheme).
"Make the smallest slice as large as possible and youre golden".. that is achieved actually when the smallest slice is also the biggest slice, therefore they re all the same regarding their size
LOL, who come here because you have to write an essay.
.....
plz halp. mines over our moral duty to obey the law.....uugggghhhhh kill me now
I'm just here to learn, man.
FosbackFilms learn this. Bill Clinton was not a good dude. He was a drug smuggler and human trafficker. Looks like Rawls was a friend of his
@@FosbackFilms lucky you
yes. Just 1500 words for mine tho "state income redistribution policies are necessary to ensure the fair distribution of the benefits and proceeds of landmark innovations related to mechanization, robotics and artificial intelligence."
Buddy I've just listened to about 10 of these videos in a row. Each was more brilliant than the one before. Kudos to your talent, and thank you for the quality of the product.
+David Drewery I watched 14, I win :-DD
*****
I have watched the universe unleash its deepest most hidden secrets of spurdo to me, I win :-DDDDDD
*****
>Ireland
Holy shit do you live here?
*****
I live in Limerick, stab city :^)
*****
Well, its safer than you'd think, just don't go to Childers road and you're fine.
I remember a thought experiment in my school where we were tasked with creating a society, but we didn't know ahead of time if we'd be on the bottom rung or the top rung of that society. Seems my Social Studies teacher had been studying Rawls.
It kind of reminds me of the old Indian Caste System. People are born into a certain position in society. By doing good to others and living a spiritually, you can move up the caste system in the next life. I don't know why it reminds me of that.
please provide closed caption for deaf viewers. I would love to watch this.
Alexa Hansen The following isn't the captioned video. However, its an approximate script to the video up here. Almost entirely followed through in the video. Might be useful i suppose :
thephilosophersmail.com/perspective/the-great-philosophers-john-rawls/
@@shitabdaiyanakash2046 you practised this theory.
I know this is weird but we have the same last name lol
There are captions now.
he now has
You should do Robert nozick next.
+Marchall White yup
+Marchall White They will never do Nozick. They won't even do Locke. If you haven't noticed, School of Life is just socialist propaganda.
+Hunter Tidwell I'm not sure it is such a stretch. Propaganda isn't a very nasty term. It's fine to have biased views but it is crucial that people recognize that bias. I don't think you could honestly say that school of life is not at least slightly biased towards the left (although I would say quite strongly biased). You're right that they have Adam Smith (which is something I didn't realize earlier) but even in that video they don't mention "the invisible hand" which definitely a lot more significant to his work than most of the things they mentioned. Instead they talked about rich people being narcissists and how to treat them (again a total left wing assumption). Also you can't honestly say that they "dismissed" Marx; by this I assume you're referring to the one sentence on how his ideas have never worked properly in the past? Every Marx supporter I've ever heard has conceded that point and countered with "well that's because they didn't do it right." They didn't criticize his actual philosophy at all (which is fine since they didn't criticize Adam Smith either) but it was far from a dismissal. And their video on capitalism (if I can remember correctly) was mostly about how to fix it using socialist means. I also found the Rousseau video to be kind of ridiculous in the sense that they called him a provocateur, but didn't mention any of his more crazy ideas (like the legislator, his support for brain washing the public etc.). They also attributed him with a certain "state of nature" that I have never heard anyone else use to describe him -- which made him look like a transcendentalist or something. This channel (at least to me) seems clearly biased, although I do not find that to be a bad thing necessarily. I just need to watch other videos that are slightly skewed towards the right to make up my mind.
+Hunter Tidwell Fair enough, I guess I use the terms "socialist" and "left" more or less synonymously -- which I understand isn't totally accurate. Although I still find it hard to make the argument that School of Life is in defence of classical liberalism (which is what I consider to be the center) since they are the only group that feels the need to discuss Hobbes and Rousseau while leaving out Locke and Mill. I do understand, however, that you aren't claiming that they are classical liberals. But even neoliberalism seems like a stretch for me since (correct me if I'm wrong) I've always associated neoliberalism with lessez-faire economics and fiscal austerity; someone like Margaret Thatcher. Either way I understand your point and the semantics are less important. It just bugs me when videos that lean slightly right get scalded for their unfair biases while videos that lean (sometimes extremely) left are considered fair because they generally sound 'nice'.
Regarding School of Life representing the status quo: we may have to agree to disagree on that one since that is more of an intuitive argument. That being said, I hope the status quo is not left leaning to the point where business owners and producers are practically vilified, or at best, ignored (which is the impression I get from SOL). But you may be right about that; the public has grown quite distasteful of big business. I appreciate your civility as well. This gives me good practice for my philosophy papers.
+Colton Killoran They did Locke and they SHOULD do Nozick.
I had to come back to this video; I'm currently reading Rawls for life purposes and no academic intention whatsoever so far. This video was my starting point. I was and remain inspired.
All free societies are unfair. Only by force can they be made completely fair. Utopian ideals forced on society end up with millions dead (say the Cultural Revolution, Soviet purges, Jacobin bloodletting, etc).
We still should help the poor as responsible citizens. We should create opportunity for those at the lowest income levels.
Just remember any utopia always equals someone's dystopia!
Chris McCall Denmark is no utopia, Belgium, my own country isn't one neither and I know I'm free. I tend to think they are waaaaaaay fairer than the US or other rich countries. It is about to try to be as fair as possible, step by step and try to better the system incrementally.
say that it’s true that all attempts to rectify grave injustice result in mass casualties, and say that the american civil war is an example. would you advocate that america should have let slavery continue?
If John Rawls is going to be covered, then certainly doing a video on Robert Nozick would be a must?
Lancer Davis Burguiere shhhh, don't ruin the party
Lancer Davis Burguiere Not really.
+Lancer Davis Burguiere Perhaps, in the eyes of Alain de Botton, Nozick has not taught lessons worth sharing.
+Lancer Davis Burguiere Compassion and Altruism are the noblest of virtues.
+Lancer Davis Burguiere You mean the darling of the corporate hegemonic establishment? He whose individualistic right to property in every way trumps egalitarian social justice? If I'm not mistaken, even Nozick himself wasn't swallowing the libertarian bit by the end of his days.
I'd like to hear what Rawls thought about Clinton.
He probably thought, "Well, he's no FDR, but he's better than Reagan."
TJsMusicUploads Whether or not the POTUS is a puppet of the wealthy elite is beyond the point. Some presidents are better than others. They are clearly not all the same. FDR is the best president of modern times. That is not to say that even if we had a modern day FDR in office today that people should "trust" them and abdicate their responsibilities as citizens to act in good faith, stay informed and engaged.
Not only are Science and politics up for manipulation, so is religion. It is naive to think otherwise. What you have said doesn't explain why faith is important. I do not trust nature, that's why we have hospitals. Your statement,
"its a trust in nature(What some call God) to work out for the best"
is one of the most naive things ever said. In fact a philosopher named Voltaire wrote a great book about it called "Candide, or The Optimist". It will only work out for the best if and only if people of good will work together to make it work out for the best.
Jeremiah Mckenna As opposed to Reagan and Ayn Rand, who would talk about how they can help the contra rebels murder more nuns, and sell crack to inner-city youth.
+Majoofi
Funny you mention Clinton, because was huge fan of John Rawls. As such, Clinton gave Rawls a congressional medal for his work.
quote3000 Yes, that is quite true. As i recall, Clinton also had Rawls as a dinner guest at the whitehouse.
Every time I tune into this channel, I leave with more confidence in humanity and less apathetic to circumstances outside my immediate control. Thank you. Please do not stop.
I love this channel too. I love his voice. It's soothing and is easier to comprehend than the readings I am given. The philosophy videos I have watched sound similar to each other. The people have their own emphasis but it sounds like they all believe that there are more ways to better society and it starts with the way we think about life.
@The School of Life,+The School of Life ,I would really love to see some videos on Anarchist Political theorists,Particularly that of the libertarian Socialist variety.Such as Emma Goldman ,or perhaps Pierre Joseph Proudhon.Though not exactly a libertarian socialist ,he is vastly important in the development of anarchism.This is one of my favorite channels so keep spreading knowledge.
+The School of Life Noam Chompsky please :p
A Merry Can YES
+Adam Chavez LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISTS? WHAAAAT?
Willian Pablo look em up
Adam Chavez Noam Chompsky is a anarcho-socialist, not a libertarian (free market and individual rights apologist)
Hi,
Can you please make a video on Robert Nozick?
this 'veil of ignorance' experiment is brilliant
It is compatible with antinatalism. The risk factor is too much in being born.
@@lepetitchat123 Boy do i feel like a sucker, opting in on the getting born thing
No, it’s overly simplistic, flawed, and based in Rawls own preconceptions and insecurities. Beware of cheap lazy answers to a complex world.
@@ineffablebeing4276 what? can you elaborate
@@Koettnylle yep elaborate please
Why did you include picture of Russel Brand?!
Great Video. After taking a class on Modern Political Philosophy, I can say that this video contains all the really important ideas Rawls brings to the table. Many people would find Rawls rather difficult to read, but this video really highlights the ideas that the average person needs to consider by themselves on their own. Keep up the work! I enjoy all the videos this channel makes.
Do you oppose unnecessary violence toward animals or do you buy meat?
@@romanski5811 Yes I do oppose unnecessary violence towards animals. Come this October I will have been vegan for 5 years.
I'd rather be born poor and free than slightly less poor and subservient to bureaucrats in a far away capital
Can you please remove the giant "click here SUBSCRIBE" box in the upper left hand corner. It's really annoying especially since I'm already subscribed to this channel.
you can do it yourself by hovering over it and clicking the x in the upper right of the box.
No shit. its still annoying that its on every one of their videos.
Alain de Botton So it IS your voice on these vids! Ya'll are doing great work. Thanks!
Alain de Botton I don't think anybody will become a subscriber just because of this box. If someone likes your videos, he/she will click on the button underneath the title - and it's very annoying for us, who have already subscribed, to close the box every time we watch something from this channel.
The veil of ignorance is a brilliant thought experiment. Thanks for your incredibly informative and well narrated videos!
Hallgrenoid not really
Ignorance spawns impartiality - Rawls
This is why I think the right to equal opportunity in the Netherlands is so important!
About poverty: lots of poverty exist because people who can no afford having children are multiplying; are they ignorant? Yes, do they have a veil? NO. PS: The veil of ignorance is a good exercise to a better society. (Thanks to Alain de Botton and his team for the School of life.
These videos are absolutely hands down some of the best videos on RUclips. The School of Life is fucking awesome.
Sean Cavey lol if you like being brainwashed by guys who just spitball what they think these people have said. Those 4 points of how the "public" wants to change society...yeah Rawls never said that. The veil of ignorance is an excuse for the rich to get richer. He literally says in a theory of justice, that not everyone especially the handicapped will be included...Bill Clinton is not a reliable source for fair judgement lol
John Rawls is wrong. This is the first time I head about this guy but he totally ignores choice. You are not chained to the circumstances of your birth. You can go move to Scottsdale and learn the skills to be a orthodontist. It may be hard but it's not impossible. You can make the choice to go to a library when your education sucks. Our choices effect our lives a hell of a lot more than the circumstances of our birth. What really hurts people is people like John Rawls effecting legislation that gets adopted by society that tells educates people that it doesn't matter what they do it only matters who they are and where they were born. That turns into a toxic mindset. It robs people of hope for their lives and the future. If there's no hope there's no use trying to improve. I say this being born to a single mother in Detroit on the west side not the east.
You're ignoring that he was originally a statistician. Meaning he analysed life outcomes against family income and realised that the tiny amount of rags to riches stories are anomalies. Well done for your career, but the vast majority of people raised in the working classes will be stuck in the same rut as their parents were, with no chance of moving up in the world. Thomas Piketty wrote a bestseller about how our societies in the last 40 years have only got worse in this aspect. Capital, that is past from generation to generation (often in the form of real estate in the UK & France), is the greatest indicator of success.
Excuse me, but may I ask what you do? What kind of career do you have? Are you a student? If so, what school do you attend?
Ahmani Joseph I have a B.A in economics from a Penn State. Needed a change so now work as a sous chef.
***** Correlation doesn't mean causation. I'm not familiar with Rawls work so I don't know the variables he used in his research to come to this conclusion like what was his metric for rags to riches. Was it the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder to the top because I could see how that could be a rare anomaly. Because upward mobility is usually more gradual. There's a old economic saying "Three generations from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves. I can't stay what variables he used or if he just used pure statical analysis. As for Thomas picketty I he's right on the fact that it's harder for people to move up in the world but I disagree with everything else. He's a kaynesen I'm Austrian school it's bound to happen. I believe whole heartedly in the free market. Competition leads to innovating which leads to jobs which leads to competition for the best employees which leads to higher wages. It's a tried and true system which lead the western world to have a standard of living that is unimaginable elsewhere. The problem is regulation and government interference with the free market. There's all these rules most of them don't make any sense which makes it increasingly difficult for people to start and compete with large well established industries. Which kills competition. No competition no innovation or higher wages. Also with the taxes the way they are especially in Europe a large portion of wages go to social safety net which I believe would be cheaper if the free market were allowed to run those industries. There's a lot more variables but I think I'm done.
"harder for poor than rich" you go pretty close to the definition of unfairness. You can be a midget and plays basketball but seriously it's really unfair. It's not impossible to be the best player in the word but rater difficult.
Comparing TAX is not interesting, you should compare the difference between your disposable income and your income because if you have low tax but have to put so much in private health insurance it's not better. Say that, TAXs are not really higher in Europe, we just don't spend it all in the army.
As you have some economics class you know money value diminishing the more you have, so by redistribution you actually increase the value of money! Free market is good, but in some area you have market failure (monopolistic situation, externality) in those case having an intervention make total sens. I taught Penn State was better than that...
Gene Mark's Forbes article, "If I were a poor black kid" is a prime example of how detached and naive the successful wealthy are of the issues in their country.
Lol, you'd have a 50% chance of ending up in China, India, or Africa. So yeah I'd take Detroit any day.
I'm curious to know if the star child orbiting the earth in this video correlates to Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and the star child at the end of the film.
+Tom Damario My thoughts exactly.
+Tom Damario I always interpreted it as "mankind will die on earth and be reborn among the stars". A futurist statement, not one of social justice. Though one could argue that man is not capable of making that leap into space without first curing many of the societal ills associated with inhabiting earth. Or conversely, that the ills we cannot cure on earth will drive us toward the stars (i.e. bedridden Dave in the white, ornate bedroom, just before the star-child sequence).
John Rawls was a pretty clever guy. There really isn't enough philosophers who actually think about issues that really matter, like how a society should be formed. Most of them talk about semantics and dumb shit, when there can be real problems that might possibly be solved through serious philosophical inquiry and its methods.
You are the dumb one. Not everybody has to focus on a single issue.
There's a trend away from the bullshit speculative philosophy you seem to be in favor of and it's all for the better. Analytic philosophy, or as you put it "semantics and dumb shit," is concerned with logic and the fundamental process of much of our reasoning and has made significant progress since the 20th century while continental philosophy is closer to the weak and non-rigorous methods of the social sciences and the humanities which is going nowhere.
The ironic thing is that even though Bill Clinton had Rawls over for dinner on a regular basis and claimed him influential, Clinton changed the political identity of the party from the social democratic and Rawlsian inclinations of FDR and Jimmy Carter- among others. He changed it to a neoliberal identity that mostly opposed government attempts to redistribute wealth and large social programs. He famously claimed that “the era of big government is over.” He claimed to respect Rawls and then just kinda said- “yeah, we’re gonna move away from your ideas in favor of unfettered capitalism and small government.” Just kinda goes to show what a shitty dude Clinton really was.
These are the best videos I've seen on philosophy. They make everything easy to understand, provide a nice visual with a stylized look, and manage to do so in such a short amount of time.
I wouldn't mind hearing these ideas talked about for hours in a podcast format. Whoever is behind writing these summaries of philosophers no doubt has a great understanding of theses ideas and I'd love to hear them discussed in further detail.
it's really hard for people in power to have empathy so they can't get concepts like fairness very well. i usually explain fairness by arguing that it is about consequences and regret. if we give some people better opportunities to a few then we could be missing the potential of the less privileged people. i am currently obsessed with the following quote:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
-stephen jay gould
what if geniuses are not as rare as we think? what if only the opportunities for them to rise are? i don't want to miss out on anyone's potential. if we build a world in which everyone could self-actualize we won't regret it
Thank you, The School of Life for this absolutely brilliant and clarifying explanation of Rawls' work. Looking forward to many more videos.
This was a really good video. Unfortunately, the comments section suggests that there are many people who lack the imagination to carry out the thought experiment.
And what is with all this talk about the video making us feel too guilty to enjoy our lives? I can hardly believe people's annoyance at SoL pointing out that the world is unfair and that we need to do something as people in positions of privilege.
If you have a lot of imagination, antinatalism is your thing.
Question. If all of these brilliant people have come before us and taught us how to live, how to create better societies, and how to treat others, than why has nothing been done? We know what must be done, but the hard decisions are never made! How sad for humanity as a whole.
+Brian Arroyo The video mentioned Switzerland and Denmark as examples, though I'm sure no one's claiming they are perfect societies.
Yeah, I have heard that Denmark has one of the world's happiest populations. This has a lot to do with probably all the social safety nets, and services provided by the state. I'm not sure but it mostly likely due to they don't have to spend so much on a huge military.
An interesting question.
Maybe it’s because of human nature, we all want different things, are personally at different stages of psychological and emotional development. Within different countries the people there have different ways of doing things for their own countries survival that are based upon the resources and environmental concerns that were/are available at the time theses societies came into existence, and that have shaped them culturally. Each individual/group/nation is reticent to give up the power and advantage they currently have as survival is the key fundamental of human existence.
In effect Pandora’s box has been opened and humans cannot go back to year O.
The economic rules of the game of Scottsdale Arizona and Detroit Michigan are completely different and therefore they get different results. Changing the rules of Scottsdale to be more like Detroit doesn't help Scottsdale or Detroit.
How about Detroit becomes Scottsdale.
You guys have got my trust back on youtube channels !
I thought, youtube was the new 'idiot box', but looking at your channel I feel the contrary.
Thanks for putting up such thoughtful content !
With the mention of Bill Clinton at the beginning, thoughts on a video about neoliberalism?
Yeah, seriously - I think the Clintons may have badly missed Rawls' point when they scrapped the public safety net and called it "welfare reform."
Watch Bill Clintons speech at the DNC, he gives a rags to riches story.
Honestly
Wow, loved this video. I just learned about John Rawls last semester in my Healthcare Ethics course and his whole "Original Position" and "Veil of Ignorance" theory really stood out to me among the other things we covered, so I'm real glad to see this here. I'm currently taking a Religion & Psychology course and it's quite interesting so far. Any chance of there being a video on Maslow or Jung in the coming months?
Also, I read your book The Consolations of Philosophy over xmas break and loved it, especially the sections on Nietzsche and Montaigne. Would love to see a video on Montaigne! I recently picked up his complete essays Volume I at a local bookstore, and I'm really interested in reading Nietzsche after learning about his philosophy in Consolations and in your School of Life video. Which work(s) of his would you suggest to start with?
Thanks Alain! I'm a big fan!
Hope you got to read more Nietzsche
You'd have to assume that every person has perfect behavior to have a Utopia. I don't care where on the planet you're born, at what time, human behavior hasn't changed over the last thousand years. It's always been that you have to associate with the bosses who have clout to gain any yourself. There will never be a system that doesn't have corruption at any and every level. Especially now that we've overfucked ourselves to 7 billion people- now all dependent on their own governmental systems, all far from perfect in practice. The only hope is personal freedoms, not status, not material.
You are on the money my friend. The evils of our ancestors can be forgiven because of their relative ignorance and inability to change human nature. But now, with our technology, we can change human nature to create a more sane and less barbaric version of ourselves. We no longer have any excuse to allow our natural insanities to run rampant.
you done a good job for all of us, but if you add the subtitles in English it would be better! any way thank you The School of Life
Abdullahi İbrahim something close to subs is in the other SOL project :
thephilosophersmail.com/perspective/the-great-philosophers-john-rawls/
Shitab Daiyan Akash thank you.
But lots of communitarian criticized him like Michal sandel, that his theory foces over only individual. Not community
Hey, I'm not a native english speaker but I really like your channel. Plus it's helping me a lot with my studies. I'm studying at a university of political science in Serbia and books aren't as understandable as these vids are so thanks. Only one remark, if you could possibly place a subtitles in these videos just so you could make it easier for us who aren't so fluent in English to watch your vids. Cheers.
Veljko .Vukojičić might be useful :
thephilosophersmail.com/perspective/the-great-philosophers-john-rawls/
Please remember:
equality of opportunity 👍
equality of outcome 👎
social democracy few
Stupid comment
@@terminalvag1198 Hey. Can you explain why it's stupid?
Also:
Equity 👍
Equality 👎
Can you guarantee equality of opportunity??
Good video but Bill Clinton inviting Rawls to the White House (many times) needs explanation. Clinton was very much a priviledged US aristocrat who worked his entire political life sucking up to the rich and powerful. How did Rawls consider his relationship with Clinton? Was he disgusted with the man? I can't understand how Rawls could not be critical of Clinton if he was to be consistent with his philosophy. This question needs to be addressed.
This sounds like the philosopher/writer Alain de Botton speaking.
It is him??
Like most socialists, Rawles brings forth criticisms of Capitalism without addressing the pragmatic issues with democratic socialism. How would we produce excellent houses, schools, hospitals, etc. for everyone? Would we force others to build and maintain these for the good of society? What if the tax-paid gov't programs are inefficient like in the UK or Canada's healthcare system? As for the Scandinavian countries, if you pick those countries under the "Veil of Ignorance", you would be picking countries that have robust, vibrant market economies that have gotten better as they go away from socialist policies. Really, according to the Heritage institutes "Index for economic Freedom", they all get excellent scores (most better than the US) in all area except for labor, tax burden, and gov't spending, where they get abysmal scores.
Great video! Have you ever thought about doing a video on Alan Watts?
Alain de Botton
I cannot wait for a video on Alan Watts. I watched a lot of his stuff years ago. It'd fill me with glee to see him turned into one of your little videos.
Alain de Botton Basho would be fantastic. Or even Bodhidharma. Thanks again for these videos.
Domenic Calabrese BASHO!
7kurisu Banana tree!
Alan Watts seemed a fine fellow but wasn't he an interpreter of eastern philosophy and religion more so than an original thinker? What would be the point?
Oh my god, that's Scottsdale Arizona. I live in Arizona, and it's very much an affluent neighborhood of millionaires and billionaires, or people who pretend to be ones. I'm on the complete opposite end of the phoenix metro area, where people are less affluent. I've also been to detroit, where people live in utter poverty. I find it fascinating that those are the two cities you chose, as I have firsthand experience with both.
Please do one on Roberto Nozick (libertarian), who argued against John Rawls (liberal). Thanks
I love Michael Sandel's explanations on people like Rawls, but his always only focus on the topics he needs to discuss. It's such a pity that Sandel didn't give deeper lectures on Kant and Rawls etc..
This is my Sunday morning: wake up, make coffee and breakfast, and run a series of School of Life videos to get my brain working, and then off to the gym, market, mall or café to consider what I have just seen.
Thanks for this page!
Loving this routine!
I have to know why Russel Brand is the visual queue for "rational" 💀💀💀
I'm adding this to my favourites list.
Also I'd recommend doing a video on Albert Ellis and his discoveries in CBT and his influences from ancient stoic philosophy.
Albert Ellis is very fascinating.
So veil of ignorance is basically what every siblings do - 'You cut and I'll choose'.
What about nozick please
This is, honestly, amazing. Easy to understand, friendly and comprehensive. Please make more of these videos. Oh, and I'd like to see Macchiavelli in on of these.
This is President Trump’s favorite Philosopher.
A key point: Rawls doesn't want you to give up your (quite likely) imaginary lambo and yacht. The rich will reap rewards from supporting policies that make the life of the poor more likely to land on jobs and less likely to land in prison. The whole point of the theory is that policy makers stop making rules that everybody will have to follow, but that will only benefit the ones who already have access to a lot. Taxing million dollar inheritances for instance won't make rich heirs actually poor, it will only (if tax money is properly used) make the poorest have access to food, education and health, therefore making it a less violent and more civil society. Yes the rich will be paying, but the poor will pay too once they get access to the conditions that land people on good jobs or to open small businesses. Lots of countries apply these ideas and some of the rich there are able to understand that they reap the rewards too when the poor are given food, education and medical care.
all praise donald trump 1:49
Unfair is that I pay 70 percent taxes and still the state is not happy since more and more persons are not willing or not even able to adopt that hard as I force myself. And still they want living.
Honestly I can change my job easily if I am exploited. Nowadays my government is exploiting me even harder. And to change the citizenship is unless harder.
This clip is bathing in self grievance. Maybe it is unfair that some persons are more talented. More educated. Whatsoever. The talk on the same results is a toxic one. Since the only thing is to guarantee same chances. This is enough as justice I am not willing to pay for a world of equal pay with unequal willingness of performance. And I do not care if it is laziness or stupity preventing to earn its own living. I pay social security for the safety I will never get out of it. Even if I work 30 years I am on the same page as a lazy young guy. This is not my definition of fairness. It is not my duty. The self reliance is totally undermined. Weak persons are today on the top of the victim ladder. For what is it good for.
Where has to be a relation in performance and payment. Otherwise no one is willing to do so. I'm pised off. I know this attitude of my colleagues. Only the goodies are for everyone. The hard word and risk for the responsible one.
I am not convinced this method doesn't have flaws, that is a presumption on your part.
Perhaps it is due to the simplification of such an issue being presented in an 7 min video.
Here is one reason why I say this:
If we were all able start off equal, then how do ideas like being rewarded based on your merits not disrupt the "fairness" of the world. Yet If we do not have meritocracy, then how is it "fair" that some whom are more talented or work harder than others, do not get rewarded more for things. This presents the issue of a continuous cycle because if we do reward them the world becomes unfair. If we do not reward them, the world becomes unfair.
Are you saying that some people are more deserving to be born into a rich family than others? Because that's the crux of the problem. Right now, our society does not have equality of opportunity. If you were born rich, you have available so many more opportunities to get richer - better education, better healthcare, more free time.., whereas if you were born poor, this is not the case. And this completely ignores race or gender discrimination... In more egalitarian societies, the income of your parents correlates much less with your own income. This is how a meritocracy should work.
Durand D'souza No I am not saying that. I am talking about people deserve to be rewarded for the effort they put in.
Part of that effort reflects on the future of your own off spring and this is a symptom of such things.
Would it be right to deny those who put in the effort to not be allowed to give their children the best start?
And this is where the dilemma comes from and the main flaw of the idea presented in the video.
Well, I think there is a spectrum of opinions here but I personally believe that no child should be discriminated against simply because his or her parents did not work as hard as another's. In my mind, there is no dilemma there.. I also think that there are limits to equality. Like you said, there has to be some sort of reflection on your hard work and that's why I don't believe in a 100% inheritance tax. At the same time, our current society is so far in the opposite direction that the majority of kids are massively discriminated against because they have the misfortune of being born to poor parents. And the worst thing about this is that their parents also had the misfortune of being born to poor parents.
Here's a good explanation: www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/
Durand D'souza You are not getting what I am saying at all. It isn't about should - people will start life at different economic foundations due to what has happened prior to their birth.
Yes in an ideal world we would all be rich and have luxuries and find a way to be rewarded for our effort but that isn't reality.
Those who have inheritance should not be taxed in my opinion because it is the person who has amassed such wealth, it is their money and they have chosen to pass it on. The state have no right in stealing from them to give to someone else.
So your solution although noble would still discriminate because their parents worked harder or had more opportunity than someone else.
This is the exact issue and flaw of Rawl's theory.
So should is an ideal but not a reality and one where the dynamics as of yet would cause some form of discrimination based on the current structure (and so far any structures we have been able to invent)
Tabby D Your system is basically like the feudal system we had before democracy took hold. It ended with rich people getting their head chopped off (if you remember). The reasons we tax inheritance are pretty simple. Wealth distorts power and the rich are a problem for democracy. You can already see how undemocratic countries with large amounts of wealth inequality are, for example.
Are you saying that you would be happy to be born into a poor family in the US (a country where poor people have low life expectancies, low chances to get advance, etc)?
thanks john rowls and thanks The School of Life channel for brilliantly putting things in perspective giving a food for thought
Hinduism has a concept of Kharma.. Similar to this. It says "You never know what kind of circumstances you're born into in your next birth. If you're treated bad and are suffering in this birth, that's because of your previous birth's Karma. So do some good deeds now, exactly how you'd expect people to do to you in your next birth and earn karma credits.. You'll be treated the way you treated others in this birth.. " There is almost a lookup table for every kind of Karma (deed) the reaction/reward you get in the next birth..
I know, this sounds irrational and I know this is totally spiritual and it's up to the one, to believe it or not, but the concept, intention and the moral values are expected to work..
this is a horrible and evil concept that blames the poor for their poverty
No. You didn't get the real intention and meaning. What Karma and it's associated "Next Birth" concept is similar to "veil of ignorance". Since we believe in next birth, and we don't know how/what are we going to be born as, we may be born to a poor family, in a not so well developed country/state and etc etc.. So, Karma expects us to behave well and take advantage of the privileges we have got in the current birth and do good deeds in this current birth. Deeds includes "helping poor, being empathetic, respecting etc etc" all that you expect others to treat you in you next birth, all these give credit points for you in this birth which you can leverage in next birth. Of course it may not be true and no certainty, but that's the moral we included in the Karma belief.
@wade2bosh Actually it does. The Karma philosophy actually does blame the poor for their poverty. But it also talks about the possibility of coming out of that situation by performing the right actions necessary. We are given money. To invest it or expend it totally depends on us.
i still do not understand what john rawls contribution was beside of the thought experiment
Also, I dont understand how his thought experiment should lead to anything else but Utilitarianism...
At least that is my conclusion.
But whats wrong for striving for utilitarianism? I think Singer makes a good point for it being a moral compass.
z
noooreally
Nothing wrong with Utilitariansm. But Rawls didnt like it and argued against it. That is something I dont unterstand.
@Mohamed: You cannot "test" a philosophical idea. You can argue and discuss it using logic but you cannot test or falsify it in a scientific way.
gcgrabodan oh I didn't know that... what did he say about it?