This is my fourth time listening to you, I am impressed by the richness of your speech, you really help me to continue to understand this world, and above all, my studies in philosophy (future professor in Canada). Thank you very mush, you inspire me.
I request you to please make a lecture on critiques of John Rawls by AMARTYA SEN as well as his own clarifications on the THEORY OF JUSTICE in POLITICAL LIBERALISM Thank You
Firstly I love your podcasts and have been listening to them daily. On your first episode about Foucalt you mentioned you were skipping logical positivism, Wittgenstein, and so on, but this was the main reason I began listening to this podcast. Is there any chance of reading transcripts or seeing any of these topics in later episodes?
Thank you for this...your way of making simple the philosophical doctrines are much more interesting than by my college and your metaphors and illustrations are so meaningful when connected with these doctrines whether it be VEIL OF IGNORANCE ... DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE OR JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
I am a strong believer in Justice. I think most people would say that they are too, but we must define what Justice actually is and what it would look like in our society. I was recently subjected to a very serious injustice that has not been resolved. I have educated myself and worked very hard all my life and achieved what most would consider I high position in society. I had always believed that we had a good just form of government until I was subjected to how people manipulate, lie and even commit crimes to win argument, even when, and especially when they know that their argument lacks even the most basic fundamental reasonable and accurate positions. So in short, even if we created a Justice society, people would always do an end around to get their way even when it is clearly unjust. Needless to say...it is still totally worth trying to achieve it and standing up against all injustices, especially when they went against our basic rights. And it is important to seek this Justice within our current system and expose when our current system fails to exact Justice. Until my last breath, Justice is worth pursuing and if our system does not exact proper justice it needs to be modified. If it is not then justice in this country is for only the rich and powerful. This by its nature is not justice.
This made me think about how Rawls would address the issue of migration and even open borders. There are always poor people abroad that we could benefit if we just continued to increase out taxes and foreign aid by just a tiny amount, but in the end it would lower the public’s (including the poor’s) acceptance for general redistributon as they would be in the same place as the rich people getting taxed within the context of a single state. No wonder that the right tends to team up with anti migration parties. Would Rawls be in favour of a world government? Is that the logical outcome of his thinking? I would be so glad if you could follow up on this in an episode II as I am sure that you will address Robert Nozick’s answer to Rawls.
Sx_Rv NHG4L I agree, but I want to know what Rawls would think. I find his case strong if you only consider a single nation, but it kinda breaks down when the whole world is taken into account.
Rawls talks about a single nation that doesn't really interact with other nations in A Theory of Justice. In the Law of People, Rawls has a chapter on Why Peoples and Not States? As a European citizen, I know that my government makes it extremely difficult for refugees to get into Europe. I am of the opinion that if refugees are willing to become part of society, they should be accepted. Now, it is quite a lot of work to become part of society. An individual needs to learn a new language and culture, which is not an easy task. But if a refugee is willing to try to become part of your society, let them. But governments distributing money to other countries is probably not as effective as intended. If the government system worked like a "well-structured society", (this being the term that Ralws uses for a society that follows justice as fairness, and can be considered fair), the people wouldn't be refugees. If there is such a thing as the global family of humans, helping each other seems only decent.
In what world is 11:40 an example of free choice? If her's wanting to illustrate an example of men going door to door with an army demanding money, surely he'd use the state as an example. Try not paying your taxes for a few years. What starts as a few letters from the IRS turns into armed agents knocking at your door demanding payment, threatening to either throw you into a cage or kill you should you choose to resist. The example at 14:35 is a horrible anti-contextual example. One is not simply "born into a situation where they have a billion dollars", one is born by the choices of their parents who created a billion dollars of value, or their parents, or their grandparents. In such a case, why is it not the parents who dictate exactly how much of this wealth they will eventually let their child command? These are a result of cascading rational choices, not "luck". If we were to accurately illustrate Rawls' example, this baby would be born out of thin air, completely randomly, not as a human choice, and land upon a neatly stacked pile of $1 billion dollars, and magically a bottle would appear that would feed said baby, and raise it, and guide it to an age where it can conceptualize "money". This is a classic example of moral equivocation, and removes every ounce of context that would make this an apt analogy. Rawls' "veil of ignorance" is possibly the most irrational standard of justice among 20th century American philosophers. Instead of addressing the primary moral question, "What am I, as a human being, here and now, permitted to do, given that I cannot NOT act, as long as I am alive and awake?", he asks a question with infinitely less nuance or context, "What do I, using my human faculties, even though I am behind a veil of ignorance, and know nothing about my intelligence, my strength, by conditions in birth, my social status, etc, deem as fair and just in society? Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote a brilliant rebuttal to this absurd anti-philosophical theory. Link below: mises.org/library/introduction-ethics-liberty Finally, Rawls himself admitted that he had simply defined the original position (regarding the veil of ignorance) so that he would get his desired result. Simply put, this isn't rational philosophy.
I hated analytical philosophy while doing my BA, and I still hate it. If anyone read Rawls, you would know; of course, if you like reading laws then his writing is right up your alley. I just, I read it and felt sooooo uninspired.
Hmm, after listing to this, i realize i can actually afford 40-50$ for a t-shirt, so how bout we do this the old way, but i'm not buying the t-shirt from you, i'm just increasing the number of people who can be fortunate enough to receive a free t-shirt from you in the next batch you make.
Wondering how Rawls makes the zero slices of pizza for those who can't afford it bigger than the small but equal pieces that all people get under soc/com type of system.
when speaking of distribution and effort based inequality this guy has ludicrous (lack of) theory of hierarchy. how is that just that for my labour as a floor cleaner I can be paid ten times less than someone for his labour of being a complacent secretary of our boss? I feel like we should decide income together, not be dictated about it
when talking of Marxism then in US as a statistician youd refer to soviet state I guess and maybe I'd forgive him. but yeah his critique is insanely underwhelming for any actual position, like for example who actually wants that perfect income equity its not anyone's idol, it's a straw man of egalitarianism
Really hard to pay attention to this podcast for more than 1 minute. It's not the content. It's your cadence. I can obsorb the content if you would just have someone else do the podcast for you. Get a voice actor. I think that is my issue with learning philosophy. Use your sarcastic voice alot more and youll be comprehendible. It's funny.
This is my fourth time listening to you, I am impressed by the richness of your speech, you really help me to continue to understand this world, and above all, my studies in philosophy (future professor in Canada). Thank you very mush, you inspire me.
I request you to please make a lecture on critiques of John Rawls by AMARTYA SEN as well as his own clarifications on the THEORY OF JUSTICE in POLITICAL LIBERALISM
Thank You
Sweet, you're back :)
Great video. I really liked your analogy of treating society like you would treat your family.
So yell and curse at society when it pisses me off?
You have nailed it sir
Thanks so much
Firstly I love your podcasts and have been listening to them daily. On your first episode about Foucalt you mentioned you were skipping logical positivism, Wittgenstein, and so on, but this was the main reason I began listening to this podcast. Is there any chance of reading transcripts or seeing any of these topics in later episodes?
Thanks for this. And happy new year!
Thank you for this...your way of making simple the philosophical doctrines are much more interesting than by my college and your metaphors and illustrations are so meaningful when connected with these doctrines whether it be VEIL OF IGNORANCE ... DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE OR JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
You have nailed it
I am a strong believer in Justice. I think most people would say that they are too, but we must define what Justice actually is and what it would look like in our society. I was recently subjected to a very serious injustice that has not been resolved. I have educated myself and worked very hard all my life and achieved what most would consider I high position in society. I had always believed that we had a good just form of government until I was subjected to how people manipulate, lie and even commit crimes to win argument, even when, and especially when they know that their argument lacks even the most basic fundamental reasonable and accurate positions. So in short, even if we created a Justice society, people would always do an end around to get their way even when it is clearly unjust. Needless to say...it is still totally worth trying to achieve it and standing up against all injustices, especially when they went against our basic rights. And it is important to seek this Justice within our current system and expose when our current system fails to exact Justice. Until my last breath, Justice is worth pursuing and if our system does not exact proper justice it needs to be modified. If it is not then justice in this country is for only the rich and powerful. This by its nature is not justice.
Can you tell us what the injustice was without revealing too much personal info? I find myself curious.
Great work.
But I do disagree with some things neither the less great work
This made me think about how Rawls would address the issue of migration and even open borders. There are always poor people abroad that we could benefit if we just continued to increase out taxes and foreign aid by just a tiny amount, but in the end it would lower the public’s (including the poor’s) acceptance for general redistributon as they would be in the same place as the rich people getting taxed within the context of a single state. No wonder that the right tends to team up with anti migration parties.
Would Rawls be in favour of a world government? Is that the logical outcome of his thinking?
I would be so glad if you could follow up on this in an episode II as I am sure that you will address Robert Nozick’s answer to Rawls.
A world government is stupid. People have different values, needs, wants, and beliefs. No one government can appease all.
Sx_Rv NHG4L I agree, but I want to know what Rawls would think. I find his case strong if you only consider a single nation, but it kinda breaks down when the whole world is taken into account.
@@krumbergify k
Rawls talks about a single nation that doesn't really interact with other nations in A Theory of Justice.
In the Law of People, Rawls has a chapter on Why Peoples and Not States?
As a European citizen, I know that my government makes it extremely difficult for refugees to get into Europe. I am of the opinion that if refugees are willing to become part of society, they should be accepted. Now, it is quite a lot of work to become part of society. An individual needs to learn a new language and culture, which is not an easy task. But if a refugee is willing to try to become part of your society, let them.
But governments distributing money to other countries is probably not as effective as intended. If the government system worked like a "well-structured society", (this being the term that Ralws uses for a society that follows justice as fairness, and can be considered fair), the people wouldn't be refugees.
If there is such a thing as the global family of humans, helping each other seems only decent.
@@MaxAnkum If everyone was white and had more than 50 brain cells maybe we'd thrive as a planet.
Cheers from Nepal
Such a great message !!!!
I love your videos stephen!
Love you!
Good lord ... these questions and conclusions are just common sense (masquerading as "nouveau" theories).
In what world is 11:40 an example of free choice? If her's wanting to illustrate an example of men going door to door with an army demanding money, surely he'd use the state as an example. Try not paying your taxes for a few years. What starts as a few letters from the IRS turns into armed agents knocking at your door demanding payment, threatening to either throw you into a cage or kill you should you choose to resist.
The example at 14:35 is a horrible anti-contextual example. One is not simply "born into a situation where they have a billion dollars", one is born by the choices of their parents who created a billion dollars of value, or their parents, or their grandparents. In such a case, why is it not the parents who dictate exactly how much of this wealth they will eventually let their child command? These are a result of cascading rational choices, not "luck".
If we were to accurately illustrate Rawls' example, this baby would be born out of thin air, completely randomly, not as a human choice, and land upon a neatly stacked pile of $1 billion dollars, and magically a bottle would appear that would feed said baby, and raise it, and guide it to an age where it can conceptualize "money". This is a classic example of moral equivocation, and removes every ounce of context that would make this an apt analogy.
Rawls' "veil of ignorance" is possibly the most irrational standard of justice among 20th century American philosophers. Instead of addressing the primary moral question, "What am I, as a human being, here and now, permitted to do, given that I cannot NOT act, as long as I am alive and awake?", he asks a question with infinitely less nuance or context, "What do I, using my human faculties, even though I am behind a veil of ignorance, and know nothing about my intelligence, my strength, by conditions in birth, my social status, etc, deem as fair and just in society?
Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote a brilliant rebuttal to this absurd anti-philosophical theory. Link below:
mises.org/library/introduction-ethics-liberty
Finally, Rawls himself admitted that he had simply defined the original position (regarding the veil of ignorance) so that he would get his desired result. Simply put, this isn't rational philosophy.
I didnt realize how conservative Rawls is;
that's been well hidden!
Dysfunctional families is where it started and continues for most societies.
I mean, I don't care that much to pay for your t-shirt, I just would really like to own one...
What a good video, maybe you just need to edit them to gain more views
What Rawls is critiquing is #CommunicativeRationality. Communicative Rationality is only not tenable because it’s in conflict with CAPITALISM!
Sartre’s waiter fell in front of my car
I hated analytical philosophy while doing my BA, and I still hate it. If anyone read Rawls, you would know; of course, if you like reading laws then his writing is right up your alley. I just, I read it and felt sooooo uninspired.
I love it.
Hmm, after listing to this, i realize i can actually afford 40-50$ for a t-shirt, so how bout we do this the old way, but i'm not buying the t-shirt from you, i'm just increasing the number of people who can be fortunate enough to receive a free t-shirt from you in the next batch you make.
17:32
🔥
Wondering how Rawls makes the zero slices of pizza for those who can't afford it bigger than the small but equal pieces that all people get under soc/com type of system.
when speaking of distribution and effort based inequality this guy has ludicrous (lack of) theory of hierarchy. how is that just that for my labour as a floor cleaner I can be paid ten times less than someone for his labour of being a complacent secretary of our boss? I feel like we should decide income together, not be dictated about it
I understand what Rawls is saying but equality of outcome is a strawman of Marxism and not its actual goals
Or at least very misleading and reductive
when talking of Marxism then in US as a statistician youd refer to soviet state I guess and maybe I'd forgive him. but yeah his critique is insanely underwhelming for any actual position, like for example who actually wants that perfect income equity its not anyone's idol, it's a straw man of egalitarianism
We are the only species that attempts to make an unfair world into a fair one. 🤔
Really hard to pay attention to this podcast for more than 1 minute. It's not the content. It's your cadence. I can obsorb the content if you would just have someone else do the podcast for you. Get a voice actor. I think that is my issue with learning philosophy. Use your sarcastic voice alot more and youll be comprehendible. It's funny.