Wow I just found it amazing how I understood this term by watching a 1 and a half minute video while the last time I tried to understand it by reading I couldnt even get a single word. Thanks for the organized explanation :D
These animations are incredible, and witty and clever at the same time. This installment references at least 3 classic board games: Monopoly, Guess Who and Mousetrap - the last one very subtly.
a society, to my mind, is the place where people should accept each other regardless their race, religion, sect or color. Also, it's where we should feel breezes of liberty, justice and human rights. Sorry we miss these more in the developing countries
This question becomes so much more complex when you introduce religion into the mix. Think about it. Say you go back in time and tell the people you are from the future and you possess superior knowledge and are able to make society better. What is the only thing that will stand in your way? God. Blasphemy! Witch! Antichrist! It could be argued that the two primary causes of conflict in the world are (1) Resource scarcity (2) Ideological disagreement. However, it all can be boiled down to (2) once you realize that if (2) is no longer an issue, neither is (1). People of reason will be much more likely to sort thinks out in a way beneficial to all, whereas people of doctrine and ideologies of poisonous totalitarian regulations will never agree whose version of the man in the sky that doesn't exist is right.
+OverLordGoldDragon I think that is too simplistic of a way of viewing society. Lets say for example you take away religious texts, where does that leave the society in question? I personally have very little faith in human nature. Furthermore, suppose that even if by some miracle. society has advanced in some sort of equitable way, it is unreasonable to think that they would embrace what we call 'superior' today on the basis that 1. Again, we have no idea what a society without some sort of foundation in religion would look like and 2. our society is adapting to us specifically. It is not a perfect society (some would argue it's barely even superior it just hides its waste better). It would not necessarily work for people with differing ideals. I will admit there are likely some aspects of society's advancement that is almost universally better but these are usually less controversial and may not be necessarily opposed to Religious teachings.
Sim Mills Without explicit dogma to cloud judgment, any crop-raising civilization would embrace superior technology and morality with an open mind. In that I have no doubt. Now if you're talking about the Stone Age, that I don't know.
That's why in order for you to get behind the veil, you should not think of yourself as having a religion, a race, a status, etc because it wiill make you biased and inconsiderate of others --- too much self-eccentricity
The difficulty is to create enough incentive for entrepreneurs to build businesses while at the same time providing an adequate safety net for those who cannot help themselves. That incentive is what creates the businesses that create jobs for everyone in between. If the system doesn't provide that incentive, then everyone's prospects are diminished. If too many people at the bottom are gaming the system, there is less capital to create jobs. If it was easy, everyone would be happy.
My society: 1. Children are introduced to emotional development. Begin at Toddler age, preschool, kindergarten, primary school- teach the human child about emotions and what is acceptable adult behavior and not. Continue these compulsory classes and advance the stages of learning to the age so it’s appropriate. How many children are in abusive homes, but do not know…until it’s too late? How many of us laugh at videos online that are actually NOT funny? Seriously consider how emotionally immature humans are and why the world is in chaos. Early on, education would also be tailored to explore interests and strengths, giving the student encouragement to proceed and develop their studies. Every human finds something of interest easier to learn than by force. Language , we should create a world where the human child is not limited to one language. Two or three common world languages taught across the board would be helpful. If we can communicate, we share a common factor making life easier as we can assimilate. It also needs to be discussed and taught that human physiology processes run the same across all ethnicities and cultures. I don’t know why, but humans don’t acknowledge that DNA is a program, the coding for life and the cell stores information. Science explains this. Animal species also adapt and change depending on the earths harsh environment. Human bodies also do the same. Human is human. In Carl Sagan’s said it well when he said earth was the only world so far that is known to harbor life. Well, then why make life hell when it can be actual paradise. If we choose. I would choose to live in that reality where we are conscious and aware of how our energy truly affects another. I love you. I see no separation between you, me, the mouse, the crocodile. We are one 🤍🙏
Perhaps the VEIL of IGNORANCE was inspired by Plato's Republic and the idea of the FORM of the GOOD... (Not proposing that VEIL of IGNORANCE is exactly the same as the FORM of the GOOD!). My imperfect interpretation is the FORM of the GOOD is that which is universally GOOD across all time and space. In other words, for Plato, the FORM of the GOOD X doesn't change relativistically because of the year, century, country, person, culture etc. Rather imperfect and subjective perceptions of "What is Good" is changes, and strong belief in our imperfect subjective impressions often results in human conflicts, environmental damage etc. It seems John Rawls creatively applies (to some degree) the FORM of the GOOD to making social, economic and political decisions... If I understand John Rawls correctly, a "GOOD" course of action or policy (social, political or economic) will be GOOD for ALL (without favoring particular groups or environments over other particular groups or environments). A Perfect Circle might exist in the abstract realm of thinking, but a Perfect Circle might not exist in the physical world (at least I have not found one yet). Similarly, a Perfectly Good Policy might exist in an abstract sense; however, creating and acting upon a Perfect Policy might not be possible in the physical world... as there will almost certainly always be some degree of unfairness, implicit bias, subjectivity, egocentrism, culturalcentrism, nationalism, us vs. them... etc., and there will almost always be those who will benefit more and those who will benefit less to some degree... EVEN STILL..., if we start with a better blue print by applying the VEIL of IGNORANCE, we will at least be making determined efforts to create policies that are based on more ethical blue prints. If we do our best to apply the VEIL of IGNORANCE, we might at the very least greatly reduce the degree of injustice in the policies we create. The information above is share as a set of assumptions, not facts... What do you think?
It is a nice video in 90 seconds, and therefore has to be limited. However, we should also consider that the veil of ignorance goes beyond this. We do not even know whether being "black, white or mixed" or a potential preference for "Beethoven, Shakira or Coltrane" might likely lead to positive or negative outcomes. We have no idea about consequences to human characteristics. Moreover, natural inequality is a given, and acceptable to the extent to which it creates the framework of equality of opportunity.
One of my favorite ideologies!! The point being... true social justice describes a society where if everyone had no idea what socioeconomic class they would be born into and have to live in, leaving it all up to chance, every single person would perfer a society where the "worse off" had access to basic needs, lived a comfortable life, and had a fair shot of success like everyone else. Simply put, that is social justice- not the "socialist" agenda the media and current political climate has warped it into.
Justice? You mean I work and some else gets my labor for free? That is not justice. We are not made of clay and cast in molds. We are born unique and so will have unique outcomes. That is the way life works and evolves. You can keep your 1984 and Brave New World ideologies.
@@gbuz5789 - Please point to me WHERE in my comment I referred to anything about your labor being used to pay for anybody else. Stop going out of your way to be so damn ignorant. This is not a rich vs poor competition. Those with money will always win anyways. This is discussion for the betterment of society as a WHOLE. So unless you have anything of substance to add, shut up and stop complaining about some nonexisent threat to your money. This isn't about you.
@@merona1546 We kind of have the system you are talking about already. But it has nothing to do with justice. Justice in this context, to me, means fairness or payment for wrongs or unjust behavior. A free market and meritocracy is justice (with rules of course). Letting people help those that need it, instead of forcing help through taxes is justice. If that is what you meant too then I apologize for any perceived slight.
@@gbuz5789 - The problem is those who think like you are extremely unaware of the rigid social, economical, and political structures in our society. It is a fact that those who are born into poverty are most likely to die living in poverty. Same scenario for their children, and their children's children. Generations of poverty exist right here in the U.S., and that is a pattern that cannot continue to be ingnored. If this society is truly meritocratic as you and many others like to claim, why would generational poverty exist to the extreme amount of levels that it does today? Yes, some few are able to break through these rigid class structures (education is key, thought of as the great equalizer for this very reason) but the truth of the matter is that our current social, political and economic system is designed against those who are most disadvantaged in our society. Social Justice is NOT about taking money from the well off to give to the poor. It is about REMOVING those barriers that keep disadvantaged people in our society from a chance at success. There is so much more to understand, that it cannot simply be explained to you in this one comment. But hopefully it is enough for you to understand that a meritocratic society does not exist for all. That would assume that everyone starts from a equal playing field and are awarded the same privileges and access to resources- when that is simply not the case in our reality.
@@merona1546 It is not good to start off by assuming I am unaware of something. Please explain yourself without condescending. "those who are born into poverty are most likely to die living in poverty." Yes, so? First, it is not always generational. Plenty of rich people came from poor roots. Second, being poor in the US is not poor in most of the world. Third, there are reasons for people being poor and it is not the lack of money. "generational poverty exists to the extreme amounts... today" This is not true in the US. It is about 12% but it would be almost none if the world standard was used. (Meaning money received per year.) "current social, political and economic system is designed against those who are most disadvantaged in our society." Yes, welfare is a crutch, not a safety net. Identity politics divides us. Affirmative action hurts more than it helps. It seems you are not for redistribution of wealth or are you? You say there are "barriers that keep disadvantaged people in our society from a chance at success." What are those barriers? Single parenting? Illegal immigration? Poor schools? "starts from an equal playing field" what does that mean? The rules are the same for everyone already. It is unrealistic to say everyone starts with the same advantages. People are born different and it is IMO immoral to try to make everyone the same. I am for helping people be successful and those that have become very successful should lead and many do. But helping should be voluntary not forced through taxation, that is immoral. I am open to suggestions. What do you think we could do?
Rawls didn't just apply this to human beings as this video graphically displays, he was an ethical vegetarian. Look from behind the veil of ignorance at a factory farm or a slaughterhouse. An intilectually honest person would take only a few seconds to arrive at Rawls' conclusion.
Communism. Under today's circumstances, everyone being equal and working together means everyone would be pretty well off. So if I was some random person, is this not what I would have to wish for?
Since you're replying to my comment, note my emphasis on *the year of your birth*, anywhere from 1M BCE to 1M CE. Which economic system maximizes economic growth?
@@simplulo I will chose the most future dated one , though I don't know how it would be like, but as it is so far ahead of time, there must be a lot of progress.
@@satyamdhal389 I agree with your sentiment, but the choice is for *an economic system*, if you didn't know your role or the year. One would rationally choose a system with a high growth rate.
Yep. Agree. If I were designing a society, I would try to do it with this in mind. But! My knowledge of other people is limited. If I were designing a society, I might try to make a list of marginalized populations to keep in mind, but I might be so ignorant of a population that I don't plan for them at all. (I can't give an example involving myself, because then, I'd obviously know already! But if I hypothetically had music be a core part of the arts in my society, and only realize later that the Deaf community exists... I did a bad society!) So, knowing that I don't know what I'm doing, I would have to plan around the holes in my knowledge that I... don't ... know about. Like, I dunno, the video mentioned that I might turn out to enjoy cage fighting. Is that just fighting in a cage? Is that usually a safe sort of activity? Does it cause long term brain damage like football? Is that one of those situations like wrestling where the fighters are independent contractors without health insurance? I don't know how to plan around that! Eesh. I mean, any rule in society that makes sense is going to have an outlier for whom the situation is bad. This might be solvable in a tiny society, like a small democratic village, say, but I can't split up society into only tiny villages. Even if we don't wind up forming city-states and city-nations and making alliances and warring, then like, what if one of my small villages votes by a wide margin to be abusive to one of the villagers? So, I should have some kind of larger system to have hands-off control of these smaller villages, and--ohp I just invented federalism and anti-federalism. Oh no. Oh crap. OK, let's scrap that one. Let's go back to the rubric. We don't have to make a GOOD society. Just a JUST one. Let's see. Um... Anarchy until a certain line is crossed, at which point a giant cage falls out of the sky and we have a totalitarian dicta--no that's stupid. I'm not going to be lazy and say "our current court system" because juries will take BITE MARK ANALYSIS as fact. Maybe if we have... a bunch of different systems available to people, but through some hypothetically-perfect means, they are entirely opt-in? I mean, that may lead to a Communism Baby being two years old, and then saying "mine!" until it gets transferred away from its family into the Individualism Village. Which wouldn't be awesome, but if I implement an age of majority to be allowed to opt-out of your current system, then I'm still allowing for abusive homes to not have any child protection at all. Also, if I'm letting people switch whenever they want, people would use that to their advantage--a rich guy switching to the "No-Taxes" system until tax season is over, at which point he switches back to "Regulated Capitalism." But then again, he wouldn't be allowed to victimize any poor people with his wealth--they would be able to switch to "Universal Basic Income" land whenever they needed. Some systems can only exist when implemented widely (the obvious argument against me would be, "you can't have a system of universal basic income without taxing wealthy members") but if this society is big enough, it's probably ok. Maybe we would have some visitation regulations set up for Capitalist Baby to meet up with its Communist Parents. Or maybe it's not a physical location, but instead only concerns your legal stuff (visas, income, taxes)... but that would create new hurdles for public works. I think I need to test this with a focus group first.
Yes. But you couldn't actually make pick any opinions at that point and now that you can you place is pretty determined. Hence the need for a the thought experiment. But in essence I agree with you. Often when I find myself judging someone harshly I my internal commentary goes: "That could have been you"
@@Tsmowl " You could have been born anywhere and under any circumstances. " No, you are who you are. If you were born under other circumstances (which you can't, too late for that) you would not be you.
A huge presumption has been omitted here - That we are all selfish, and crave a system that suits our own situation best. If that is true, then I am alone in this world.
You are 100% correct. Evolution demands a certain amount of selfishness for the species to survive and thrive. Not sure why that means you are then alone?
People getting paid lots of money is perfectly acceptable in cases where it matches the value that they provide. Putting a limit on income will definitely limit provided value. Setting a limit to how much people can earn will not enrich the impoverished. Earning limits serve no beneficial purpose.
It not only doesn't benefit the poor, it can also make them even poorer if the rich decide to take their businesses and wealth to a more competitive country. France is losing millionaires at an alarming rate partly due to high taxation on the rich.
The point is, you must create a just society where you don't know if you are either, poor or rich, black or white, male or female, gay or straight, disabled or not disabled. You don't know who you would be born as. The point is you would be rationally inclined to create a society that is as just as possible for any individual of any characteristic, regardless of who you are born as. This would essentially mandate three things for a society, equality of opportunity, equal rights and liberties and inequalities to the extent that they stiill allow the greatest advantage of the least advantaged.
This question presents problems only to socialists. For only a socialist would consider things such as race, sexual orientation, or socio- economic status, etc. In MY view, which is consistent with the original United States idea, the society is not "constructed" at all, but allowed to construct itself. The Wealth of The Nation is not distributed (a concept which implies a distributor, the very job desired by all socialists) by an omnipotent hand, but CREATED by the labor, ingenuity, and ambition of individual citizens. So in my society, to play along with the silly terms of the author of this video, it will not matter whether I am black or white or gay or rich or poor. The US Constitution pays no respect to any such categories.
+Michael Fitzgerald Race, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, etc. are insignificant factors in the human experience? Except for socialists?! Society is not "constructed" (by humans,) but allowed to construct itself (by humans,) you imply. What’s the difference?
Michael Fitzgerald I don't think you understand the history of slavery. It was much longer than one generation and throughout, equal opportunity was rigged. The remaining Jim Crow laws were overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but years of action and court challenges were needed to unravel numerous means of institutional discrimination.
A just society is you put in work and get something in return, work for luxury. The lazy get the least, while the hard working get the most. Nothing else matters. Crime is punishable, and there should be a limit to donations.
If something bad happens to me in this society that I made up, then it is fair. Much like a game. If I lose then it's fine, only if there is no cheating.
Hahah thats nice but worthless All that rawls was saying is that life is not fair and who can not figure that out on his own? The thing is life was never nor will ever be fair. Furthermore it sounds a lot like cultural marxism and because I am from Frankfurt I know that is terrible ...
because you're from Frankurt, automatically you would know what Marxism is? pick up a book mate, Rawls wasn't an idiot, maybe read his book, you might see that Germany and most of the Scandanavian region have adapted his thinking.
@@sarabieleven I think fabilikeruffy was making a joke about being from Frankfurt so he knows marxism is terrible. However, it is BS so I guess he does know something.
I don't think that was the point. I think we all know life's not fair. But I think he was more in the lines of creating social system that benefit the most people.
This is a lot better than the woke version you tube of "The Veil of Ignorance" which slams the idea before it gets explained (like a devilish twisting of the veil). Oddly, the idea seems a lot more reasonable here. When I imagine a next world, the features are always very beautiful. Sometimes what seems like sky seems then turns to mountains. But I haven't imagined any people there yet. It still seems very nice, though no justice is there either that I can tell; not sure of the language. I haven't quite figured out where to climb across and enter. How is it what one imagines can seem to have its own kind of substance or order, not of your making, its own allowance or hours of opening?
Wow
I just found it amazing how I understood this term by watching a 1 and a half minute video while the last time I tried to understand it by reading I couldnt even get a single word.
Thanks for the organized explanation :D
Yeah, it is a pretty easy concept but dangerous because it leads to socialism which is deadly and destructive.
@@gbuz5789 - Ignorance at its finest.
@@merona1546 How so Mr. Moron? I mean Meron...
G Buz, you're literally the fucking textbook case of an ignorant right winger.
These animations are incredible, and witty and clever at the same time. This installment references at least 3 classic board games: Monopoly, Guess Who and Mousetrap - the last one very subtly.
And also Twister!
The most clear explanation of veil of ignorance.
Thank youu
Thank you very much. it was easy and fair.
a society, to my mind, is the place where people should accept each other regardless their race, religion, sect or color. Also, it's where we should feel breezes of liberty, justice and human rights. Sorry we miss these more in the developing countries
The change we want to see in this world starts inside of us, it is born in our gut and then flows from our heart. We all come into this stain free.
This question becomes so much more complex when you introduce religion into the mix.
Think about it. Say you go back in time and tell the people you are from the future and you possess superior knowledge and are able to make society better. What is the only thing that will stand in your way? God. Blasphemy! Witch! Antichrist!
It could be argued that the two primary causes of conflict in the world are (1) Resource scarcity (2) Ideological disagreement. However, it all can be boiled down to (2) once you realize that if (2) is no longer an issue, neither is (1). People of reason will be much more likely to sort thinks out in a way beneficial to all, whereas people of doctrine and ideologies of poisonous totalitarian regulations will never agree whose version of the man in the sky that doesn't exist is right.
+OverLordGoldDragon Great insight! Thanks for sharing, OverLordGoldDragon.
+OverLordGoldDragon I think that is too simplistic of a way of viewing society. Lets say for example you take away religious texts, where does that leave the society in question? I personally have very little faith in human nature. Furthermore, suppose that even if by some miracle. society has advanced in some sort of equitable way, it is unreasonable to think that they would embrace what we call 'superior' today on the basis that 1. Again, we have no idea what a society without some sort of foundation in religion would look like and 2. our society is adapting to us specifically. It is not a perfect society (some would argue it's barely even superior it just hides its waste better). It would not necessarily work for people with differing ideals. I will admit there are likely some aspects of society's advancement that is almost universally better but these are usually less controversial and may not be necessarily opposed to Religious teachings.
Sim Mills Without explicit dogma to cloud judgment, any crop-raising civilization would embrace superior technology and morality with an open mind. In that I have no doubt. Now if you're talking about the Stone Age, that I don't know.
That's why in order for you to get behind the veil, you should not think of yourself as having a religion, a race, a status, etc because it wiill make you biased and inconsiderate of others --- too much self-eccentricity
Outstanding video! Thank you so much for this! I can now do my mini-essay homework.
AMAZING!!! Thank you so much! What an interesting concept :D
The difficulty is to create enough incentive for entrepreneurs to build businesses while at the same time providing an adequate safety net for those who cannot help themselves. That incentive is what creates the businesses that create jobs for everyone in between. If the system doesn't provide that incentive, then everyone's prospects are diminished. If too many people at the bottom are gaming the system, there is less capital to create jobs. If it was easy, everyone would be happy.
superb
My society:
1. Children are introduced to emotional development. Begin at Toddler age, preschool, kindergarten, primary school- teach the human child about emotions and what is acceptable adult behavior and not. Continue these compulsory classes and advance the stages of learning to the age so it’s appropriate.
How many children are in abusive homes, but do not know…until it’s too late?
How many of us laugh at videos online that are actually NOT funny? Seriously consider how emotionally immature humans are and why the world is in chaos.
Early on, education would also be tailored to explore interests and strengths, giving the student encouragement to proceed and develop their studies. Every human finds something of interest easier to learn than by force.
Language , we should create a world where the human child is not limited to one language. Two or three common world languages taught across the board would be helpful.
If we can communicate, we share a common factor making life easier as we can assimilate.
It also needs to be discussed and taught that human physiology processes run the same across all ethnicities and cultures. I don’t know why, but humans don’t acknowledge that DNA is a program, the coding for life and the cell stores information. Science explains this.
Animal species also adapt and change depending on the earths harsh environment. Human bodies also do the same.
Human is human. In Carl Sagan’s said it well when he said earth was the only world so far that is known to harbor life.
Well, then why make life hell when it can be actual paradise. If we choose.
I would choose to live in that reality where we are conscious and aware of how our energy truly affects another.
I love you. I see no separation between you, me, the mouse, the crocodile. We are one 🤍🙏
Perhaps the VEIL of IGNORANCE was inspired by Plato's Republic and the idea of the FORM of the GOOD... (Not proposing that VEIL of IGNORANCE is exactly the same as the FORM of the GOOD!). My imperfect interpretation is the FORM of the GOOD is that which is universally GOOD across all time and space. In other words, for Plato, the FORM of the GOOD X doesn't change relativistically because of the year, century, country, person, culture etc. Rather imperfect and subjective perceptions of "What is Good" is changes, and strong belief in our imperfect subjective impressions often results in human conflicts, environmental damage etc. It seems John Rawls creatively applies (to some degree) the FORM of the GOOD to making social, economic and political decisions... If I understand John Rawls correctly, a "GOOD" course of action or policy (social, political or economic) will be GOOD for ALL (without favoring particular groups or environments over other particular groups or environments).
A Perfect Circle might exist in the abstract realm of thinking, but a Perfect Circle might not exist in the physical world (at least I have not found one yet). Similarly, a Perfectly Good Policy might exist in an abstract sense; however, creating and acting upon a Perfect Policy might not be possible in the physical world... as there will almost certainly always be some degree of unfairness, implicit bias, subjectivity, egocentrism, culturalcentrism, nationalism, us vs. them... etc., and there will almost always be those who will benefit more and those who will benefit less to some degree... EVEN STILL..., if we start with a better blue print by applying the VEIL of IGNORANCE, we will at least be making determined efforts to create policies that are based on more ethical blue prints. If we do our best to apply the VEIL of IGNORANCE, we might at the very least greatly reduce the degree of injustice in the policies we create.
The information above is share as a set of assumptions, not facts... What do you think?
Clever!!!
It is a nice video in 90 seconds, and therefore has to be limited. However, we should also consider that the veil of ignorance goes beyond this. We do not even know whether being "black, white or mixed" or a potential preference for "Beethoven, Shakira or Coltrane" might likely lead to positive or negative outcomes. We have no idea about consequences to human characteristics. Moreover, natural inequality is a given, and acceptable to the extent to which it creates the framework of equality of opportunity.
I agree with this theory.
I was like "I know his voice from somewhere it feels nostalgic" it appears he is the narrator for little big planet game on the play station 3
One of my favorite ideologies!! The point being... true social justice describes a society where if everyone had no idea what socioeconomic class they would be born into and have to live in, leaving it all up to chance, every single person would perfer a society where the "worse off" had access to basic needs, lived a comfortable life, and had a fair shot of success like everyone else. Simply put, that is social justice- not the "socialist" agenda the media and current political climate has warped it into.
Justice? You mean I work and some else gets my labor for free? That is not justice. We are not made of clay and cast in molds. We are born unique and so will have unique outcomes. That is the way life works and evolves. You can keep your 1984 and Brave New World ideologies.
@@gbuz5789 - Please point to me WHERE in my comment I referred to anything about your labor being used to pay for anybody else. Stop going out of your way to be so damn ignorant.
This is not a rich vs poor competition. Those with money will always win anyways. This is discussion for the betterment of society as a WHOLE. So unless you have anything of substance to add, shut up and stop complaining about some nonexisent threat to your money. This isn't about you.
@@merona1546 We kind of have the system you are talking about already. But it has nothing to do with justice. Justice in this context, to me, means fairness or payment for wrongs or unjust behavior. A free market and meritocracy is justice (with rules of course). Letting people help those that need it, instead of forcing help through taxes is justice. If that is what you meant too then I apologize for any perceived slight.
@@gbuz5789 - The problem is those who think like you are extremely unaware of the rigid social, economical, and political structures in our society. It is a fact that those who are born into poverty are most likely to die living in poverty. Same scenario for their children, and their children's children. Generations of poverty exist right here in the U.S., and that is a pattern that cannot continue to be ingnored. If this society is truly meritocratic as you and many others like to claim, why would generational poverty exist to the extreme amount of levels that it does today? Yes, some few are able to break through these rigid class structures (education is key, thought of as the great equalizer for this very reason) but the truth of the matter is that our current social, political and economic system is designed against those who are most disadvantaged in our society. Social Justice is NOT about taking money from the well off to give to the poor. It is about REMOVING those barriers that keep disadvantaged people in our society from a chance at success. There is so much more to understand, that it cannot simply be explained to you in this one comment. But hopefully it is enough for you to understand that a meritocratic society does not exist for all. That would assume that everyone starts from a equal playing field and are awarded the same privileges and access to resources- when that is simply not the case in our reality.
@@merona1546 It is not good to start off by assuming I am unaware of something. Please explain yourself without condescending. "those who are born into poverty are most likely to die living in poverty." Yes, so? First, it is not always generational. Plenty of rich people came from poor roots. Second, being poor in the US is not poor in most of the world. Third, there are reasons for people being poor and it is not the lack of money. "generational poverty exists to the extreme amounts... today" This is not true in the US. It is about 12% but it would be almost none if the world standard was used. (Meaning money received per year.) "current social, political and economic system is designed against those who are most disadvantaged in our society." Yes, welfare is a crutch, not a safety net. Identity politics divides us. Affirmative action hurts more than it helps.
It seems you are not for redistribution of wealth or are you? You say there are "barriers that keep disadvantaged people in our society from a chance at success." What are those barriers? Single parenting? Illegal immigration? Poor schools? "starts from an equal playing field" what does that mean? The rules are the same for everyone already. It is unrealistic to say everyone starts with the same advantages. People are born different and it is IMO immoral to try to make everyone the same.
I am for helping people be successful and those that have become very successful should lead and many do. But helping should be voluntary not forced through taxation, that is immoral. I am open to suggestions. What do you think we could do?
Rawls didn't just apply this to human beings as this video graphically displays, he was an ethical vegetarian. Look from behind the veil of ignorance at a factory farm or a slaughterhouse. An intilectually honest person would take only a few seconds to arrive at Rawls' conclusion.
Are you sure rawls was vegetarian???
If the veil of ignorance concealed the year of your birth, not just your role in society, which economic system would you rather be born into?
none of the above.
Communism. Under today's circumstances, everyone being equal and working together means everyone would be pretty well off. So if I was some random person, is this not what I would have to wish for?
Since you're replying to my comment, note my emphasis on *the year of your birth*, anywhere from 1M BCE to 1M CE. Which economic system maximizes economic growth?
@@simplulo I will chose the most future dated one , though I don't know how it would be like, but as it is so far ahead of time, there must be a lot of progress.
@@satyamdhal389 I agree with your sentiment, but the choice is for *an economic system*, if you didn't know your role or the year. One would rationally choose a system with a high growth rate.
The world could do with a veil of ignorance.
Yep. Agree. If I were designing a society, I would try to do it with this in mind. But! My knowledge of other people is limited. If I were designing a society, I might try to make a list of marginalized populations to keep in mind, but I might be so ignorant of a population that I don't plan for them at all. (I can't give an example involving myself, because then, I'd obviously know already! But if I hypothetically had music be a core part of the arts in my society, and only realize later that the Deaf community exists... I did a bad society!)
So, knowing that I don't know what I'm doing, I would have to plan around the holes in my knowledge that I... don't ... know about. Like, I dunno, the video mentioned that I might turn out to enjoy cage fighting. Is that just fighting in a cage? Is that usually a safe sort of activity? Does it cause long term brain damage like football? Is that one of those situations like wrestling where the fighters are independent contractors without health insurance? I don't know how to plan around that! Eesh.
I mean, any rule in society that makes sense is going to have an outlier for whom the situation is bad. This might be solvable in a tiny society, like a small democratic village, say, but I can't split up society into only tiny villages. Even if we don't wind up forming city-states and city-nations and making alliances and warring, then like, what if one of my small villages votes by a wide margin to be abusive to one of the villagers? So, I should have some kind of larger system to have hands-off control of these smaller villages, and--ohp I just invented federalism and anti-federalism. Oh no. Oh crap.
OK, let's scrap that one. Let's go back to the rubric. We don't have to make a GOOD society. Just a JUST one. Let's see. Um... Anarchy until a certain line is crossed, at which point a giant cage falls out of the sky and we have a totalitarian dicta--no that's stupid. I'm not going to be lazy and say "our current court system" because juries will take BITE MARK ANALYSIS as fact. Maybe if we have... a bunch of different systems available to people, but through some hypothetically-perfect means, they are entirely opt-in? I mean, that may lead to a Communism Baby being two years old, and then saying "mine!" until it gets transferred away from its family into the Individualism Village. Which wouldn't be awesome, but if I implement an age of majority to be allowed to opt-out of your current system, then I'm still allowing for abusive homes to not have any child protection at all. Also, if I'm letting people switch whenever they want, people would use that to their advantage--a rich guy switching to the "No-Taxes" system until tax season is over, at which point he switches back to "Regulated Capitalism." But then again, he wouldn't be allowed to victimize any poor people with his wealth--they would be able to switch to "Universal Basic Income" land whenever they needed. Some systems can only exist when implemented widely (the obvious argument against me would be, "you can't have a system of universal basic income without taxing wealthy members") but if this society is big enough, it's probably ok. Maybe we would have some visitation regulations set up for Capitalist Baby to meet up with its Communist Parents. Or maybe it's not a physical location, but instead only concerns your legal stuff (visas, income, taxes)... but that would create new hurdles for public works. I think I need to test this with a focus group first.
interesting, good (and fair) point!
I enjoyed reading this so much lmao
This theory is logically contradictory and incoherent. Kudos to John Rawls for spilling a sophisticated jargon.
You could have been born anywhere and under any circumstances.
Yes. But you couldn't actually make pick any opinions at that point and now that you can you place is pretty determined. Hence the need for a the thought experiment.
But in essence I agree with you. Often when I find myself judging someone harshly I my internal commentary goes: "That could have been you"
@@Tsmowl " You could have been born anywhere and under any circumstances. " No, you are who you are. If you were born under other circumstances (which you can't, too late for that) you would not be you.
i couldve been a fucking fly eating shit and die a week later, or a random 5cm fish in the sea, gosh i was lucky to born a human being :D
what is poorest of the society directly benefited?
A huge presumption has been omitted here - That we are all selfish, and crave a system that suits our own situation best. If that is true, then I am alone in this world.
You are 100% correct. Evolution demands a certain amount of selfishness for the species to survive and thrive. Not sure why that means you are then alone?
featuring connor and khabib @1:00
Common sense-ism.
😂😂😂😂 exactly
All these things are hampered by being human.
Very hard not to be yourself, being selfless.
What if you're black, female, gay, and handicapped???
Oh there's a porn for that too. Wait what were we talking about again?
Redistributing wealth is equal, but it absolutely not fair in the literal sense of the word.
Being a billionaire is absolutely not fair in the literal sense of the world
People getting paid lots of money is perfectly acceptable in cases where it matches the value that they provide. Putting a limit on income will definitely limit provided value. Setting a limit to how much people can earn will not enrich the impoverished. Earning limits serve no beneficial purpose.
It not only doesn't benefit the poor, it can also make them even poorer if the rich decide to take their businesses and wealth to a more competitive country. France is losing millionaires at an alarming rate partly due to high taxation on the rich.
each and every person during their personal voluntary transactions
I don't get it!
The point is, you must create a just society where you don't know if you are either, poor or rich, black or white, male or female, gay or straight, disabled or not disabled. You don't know who you would be born as. The point is you would be rationally inclined to create a society that is as just as possible for any individual of any characteristic, regardless of who you are born as. This would essentially mandate three things for a society, equality of opportunity, equal rights and liberties and inequalities to the extent that they stiill allow the greatest advantage of the least advantaged.
This video makes me want to play Monopoly again HAHAHAHA
i cant not see a lbp tutorial
This question presents problems only to socialists. For only a socialist would consider things such as race, sexual orientation, or socio- economic status, etc. In MY view, which is consistent with the original United States idea, the society is not "constructed" at all, but allowed to construct itself. The Wealth of The Nation is not distributed (a concept which implies a distributor, the very job desired by all socialists) by an omnipotent hand, but CREATED by the labor, ingenuity, and ambition of individual citizens. So in my society, to play along with the silly terms of the author of this video, it will not matter whether I am black or white or gay or rich or poor. The US Constitution pays no respect to any such categories.
+Michael Fitzgerald
Race, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, etc. are insignificant factors in the human experience? Except for socialists?!
Society is not "constructed" (by humans,) but allowed to construct itself (by humans,) you imply. What’s the difference?
+Michael Fitzgerald It''s called minimum wage. The U.S Constitution didn't address or permit slavery either.
That is right! And it is why that problem (of slavery) was solved within a single generation.
Nobody is compelled by law to have minimum wage jobs.
Michael Fitzgerald I don't think you understand the history of slavery. It was much longer than one generation and throughout, equal opportunity was rigged. The remaining Jim Crow laws were overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but years of action and court challenges were needed to unravel numerous means of institutional discrimination.
Anchor Senjaro From the time the Constitution was written until Emancipation was only 70 years.
sharia law?
Keven gang assemble
Communism!
+Георги Тодоров have a hug
What a beautiful straw man you've built!
Didn't you hear the narrator say "free society"?
Bullshit!
Nice
A just society is you put in work and get something in return, work for luxury. The lazy get the least, while the hard working get the most. Nothing else matters. Crime is punishable, and there should be a limit to donations.
If something bad happens to me in this society that I made up, then it is fair. Much like a game. If I lose then it's fine, only if there is no cheating.
Hahah thats nice but worthless
All that rawls was saying is that life is not fair and who can not figure that out on his own? The thing is life was never nor will ever be fair.
Furthermore it sounds a lot like cultural marxism and because I am from Frankfurt I know that is terrible ...
because you're from Frankurt, automatically you would know what Marxism is? pick up a book mate, Rawls wasn't an idiot, maybe read his book, you might see that Germany and most of the Scandanavian region have adapted his thinking.
@@sarabieleven I think fabilikeruffy was making a joke about being from Frankfurt so he knows marxism is terrible. However, it is BS so I guess he does know something.
I don't think that was the point. I think we all know life's not fair. But I think he was more in the lines of creating social system that benefit the most people.
Gross
Well, you desribed Socialist United States but we call it something else so the pill we swallow seems to taste acceptable.
This is a lot better than the woke version you tube of "The Veil of Ignorance" which slams the idea before it gets explained (like a devilish twisting of the veil). Oddly, the idea seems a lot more reasonable here.
When I imagine a next world, the features are always very beautiful. Sometimes what seems like sky seems then turns to mountains. But I haven't imagined any people
there yet. It still seems very nice, though no justice is there either that I can tell; not sure of the language. I haven't quite figured out where to climb across and enter.
How is it what one imagines can seem to have its own kind of substance or order, not of your making, its own allowance or hours of opening?