I've always wondered if these interviews were partly scripted or rehearsed, or at least heavily edited. The guests always strike me as so well spoken and concise, I almost find it hard to believe that they're all speaking extemporaneously.
When you spend years with your nose pressed in books of theory you begin to adapt a necessary mental concision that increasingly presents itself in conversation. It's impressive to behold in a focused, discursive context, but your friends will find you to be a pedantic ass at parties.
I think they talk a bit before the interview - like talk show hosts do with their guests. Magee is also a professor of philosophy and his guests are also professors. When you teach a lot the ability to teach improves.
Agree 1000%. But the amygdala-dominant brains of the masses can't abide it. They need to see and hear an aggressive, vitriolic clash of personalities. Because their objective in witnessing the debate is not an increase in knowledge and understanding. Their objective is cheering on their tribe's repudiation of the opposing tribe.
Hart and dworkin are another set of legal philosophers that you may wanna give a read, actually pretty interesting the way they engage and respond to each other
Please upload more video, i have been searching the video that you upload about professor from University of Warwick if i correct, discussing about Epistemology "How can we know that we don't know" please i really need the rest of the video about interview like this. Thanks!
I suppose the reason one doesn't hear of Nozick in popular discourse is that if you want to come to his conclusions, you can skip all the elaborate intellectual arguments and cite Ayn Rand.
Rand was a far superior philosopher. Nozick was highly capable of clear thinking, but he embarrassingly failed to even restate Rand’s theory of ethics when he took on the topic.
@@sybo59 Rand has no system of ethics. It’s just egoism, out of which doesn’t follow a respect for freedom at all. If I was an egoist, the last thing I’d be concerned about is personal freedoms.
@Khuno Yeah, that’s what I would’ve thought too, but it doesn’t really seem to fit with what else was said. Magee himself says that it is a position that is held by some serious people, which Dworkin affirms, and even seems to have particular people in mind.
a few years ago a chilean politician Camila Vallejos from the communist party answered a question about it, she pretty much said so. ruclips.net/video/ieshsQJaPG0/видео.html
@@ekekonoise Nietzsche has the worst moral theory ever, and completely misinterprets history for the sake of his own argument. If you actually think that might makes right, you are not a good person. I don't want to climb a ladder to better crush others, thank you very much. I believe that the strong should protect and serve the weak as a duty, and if that is a "slave morality" then I will gladly take it, since a master is nothing without his slave. Giving to others gives you power over them, and that power is virtuous. Using power for your own gains at the detriment of others is, and will always be immoral
Even (American) Republicans would have the world believe that they support the restriction that any inequality benefit the worst-off in society. The manifestations of this belief of theirs are in several forms, such as ‘Trickle Down Economics’ and the ‘Laffer Curve’.
Rawls' original position was far ahead of its time. Called 'ridiculous' at the time and probably still seen as far-fetched to some today. However, I think we know enough about biology and psychology to say, that the original position is in fact the position we are in at birth: we can't choose our genes, socio-economic class, culture, parents and their values, skin colour, and the list goes on.
I like the characterization of wealth redistribution as “taking from the middle class to give to the lower classes”, as if the idea of redistributing wealth from the top 1% is just out of the question.
He was using that as an example precisely because it is NOT the standard example of redistribution. He’s demonstrating the radical nature of rawls’ principle that any change (ANY change) should benefit the least well off. Not benefit the greatest number, not benefit the overall opportunities…but the least we’ll off solely. So even if you fuck over the middle class and it helps the worst off…that is just. The fact that you found it counterintuitive should have supported that it’s a good example
@@MrJustSomeGuy87 That is completely ignoring the premise of the original position from which it stems. Rawls’ “original position” was the position that a rational person would take if they did not know what situation they would be born into. He said that given that original position, you would have to conclude that any policy should benefit the least well off. Not that it would benefit ONLY the least well off. Why not just go all out and argue that grinding up the wealthiest people each year and feeding them to the poor would benefit the least well off, so therefore Rawls would support that. That’s a ridiculous example, but it illustrates the point. Would a rational person choose that for society if they didn’t know the circumstances of their birth? No, obviously not. And no rational person would agree in their original position that the middle class be fucked over to help the poor, as you are very likely to be born into the middle class. The same cannot be said for the rich as a modest redistribution drawn from their wealth is not going to push them into poverty, as it may for the middle class. Therefore more people would support redistribution from the rich as that is a risk they would be willing to take if it ensured that they can still manage should they be born into poverty.
@@TheCommonS3Nse your response doesn't make sense. As to the obviously wrong "if grinding rich would benefit", for Rawls that's a non starter because it violates principle 1, basic rights The second principle doesn't necessitate that the middle class will be made poor. Clearly if they were, poorer than the poorest, they would then become the most worst off, and then justice would center around them. The comment above is accurate about why they choose middle class for sake of argument - it's to distinguish from mere utilitarianism, which Rawls is distinctly arguing against, for a comprehensive alternative.
@@Delicoms I made no claim that redistribution from the middle class would make them poor, only that it would have a material impact on their lives that it would not have for the rich. Back to the original position, if I was choosing a system that I would be born into, I would not choose one where the burden of supporting the poor falls on the middle class and not the rich. I think that's a fairly universal principle given that most developed countries have a progressive income tax and not a regressive income tax or a flat tax. It would be inaccurate to describe a progressive tax structure as "redistribution from the middle class to the poor", as most of the redistribution would be coming from the wealthy. Describing it that way doesn't offer any "distinction" from utilitarianism. It just creates a straw man that is easier to argue against. It's a scare tactic to convince people that anything that helps the poor must necessarily have a negative impact on the middle class, when that is clearly not the case.
The belief that you can fund the welfare state by taxing the top 1% is one of the oldest lies that populists have been telling forever. People keep buying it because most of them don't bother to do the math, but intellectuals are usually not as easy to manipulate.
It's not saying you could literally not know them. It's saying imagine it. This is good exercise for your imagination and it looks like you could use it.
He’s blatantly misrepresenting Rawls’ argument to be that people DO choose to structure their societies based on the original position. Rawls’ argument, as I understand it, is that the most just society WOULD be based on the original position, not that our current society is structured that way.
Anyone who takes just the arguments both the men make would stay on Nozick's side. I'm actually surprised that many people are simping for Rawls in the comments. You don't even have to be a libertarian to notics that Nozick just tore apart many of Rawls' propositions
@@dann6067 thanks... Though I must say that both have a remarkable semblance... I had seen Rawls's picture on the Google and that too of when he was older ... So maybe that's why I assumed it might have been him..Thanks for the correction anyways👍
The arrogance of academia knows no bounds. Look at the homeless and destitute in Rawls’ world after decades of his theories being studied. The proof is out and the book is quaint not practical.
00:00 John Rawls
12:13 Robert Nozick
Nozik’s theory only works in the vacum. Rawl’s works in the real work although imperfectly. That’s the big difference.
I'd love for this series to be brought back with Alex O'Connor as the host.
That would be , AMAZING
Indeed 😊
Nozick might’ve been under appreciated by his peers. But LD debaters sure do love him.
I've always wondered if these interviews were partly scripted or rehearsed, or at least heavily edited. The guests always strike me as so well spoken and concise, I almost find it hard to believe that they're all speaking extemporaneously.
They're very bright well known academics who have had years of lecturing, writing papers and books.
Well believe it.
When you spend years with your nose pressed in books of theory you begin to adapt a necessary mental concision that increasingly presents itself in conversation. It's impressive to behold in a focused, discursive context, but your friends will find you to be a pedantic ass at parties.
I think they talk a bit before the interview - like talk show hosts do with their guests. Magee is also a professor of philosophy and his guests are also professors. When you teach a lot the ability to teach improves.
He's a professor. This is likely one from one of his lectures.
Thank you for uploading this. Very interesting!
Having a relatively neutral third party explain both instead of having an actual debate is a way better way to contrast ideologies
Agree 1000%. But the amygdala-dominant brains of the masses can't abide it. They need to see and hear an aggressive, vitriolic clash of personalities. Because their objective in witnessing the debate is not an increase in knowledge and understanding. Their objective is cheering on their tribe's repudiation of the opposing tribe.
Does anybody know the brand/model of spectacles that Prof. Dworkin is wearing in this video (or similar if not the exact model)?
This was excellent. He elucidated on Rawls and Nozick succinctly.
very well done, I thought. Made me re-appraise my Nozick, though I still lean towards a minimal state, just don't trust that pesky gubmint
Great clear discussion, I’d never heard of Ronald Dworkin but clearly a very precise mind
Dworkin is wonderful, well worth reading 😉
Hart and dworkin are another set of legal philosophers that you may wanna give a read, actually pretty interesting the way they engage and respond to each other
amazing breakdown
Please upload more video, i have been searching the video that you upload about professor from University of Warwick if i correct, discussing about Epistemology "How can we know that we don't know" please i really need the rest of the video about interview like this. Thanks!
Dworkin, what a charming guy.
I suppose the reason one doesn't hear of Nozick in popular discourse is that if you want to come to his conclusions, you can skip all the elaborate intellectual arguments and cite Ayn Rand.
@Oners82 Now that is a very convincing "intellectual argument"!
Rand was a far superior philosopher. Nozick was highly capable of clear thinking, but he embarrassingly failed to even restate Rand’s theory of ethics when he took on the topic.
Rand is negligible.
@@bernardliu8526 Not if you understand her massive contributions to epistemology and ethics.
@@sybo59 Rand has no system of ethics. It’s just egoism, out of which doesn’t follow a respect for freedom at all. If I was an egoist, the last thing I’d be concerned about is personal freedoms.
10:59 Does anyone know who actually held such a view?
@Khuno Yeah, that’s what I would’ve thought too, but it doesn’t really seem to fit with what else was said. Magee himself says that it is a position that is held by some serious people, which Dworkin affirms, and even seems to have particular people in mind.
Socialists, but they would never admit it
Pretty sure Mao held this view and actually put it in practice, in which they took wealth away from all landlords in China and redistributed.
a few years ago a chilean politician Camila Vallejos from the communist party answered a question about it, she pretty much said so. ruclips.net/video/ieshsQJaPG0/видео.html
Nozick is the entirety of "right libertarianism," which is arguably less descriptive term than the shorthand, neo-feudalism.
18:28 "well, this seems to be based"
Bill Hicks has kept himself in shape
The erroneous stance of Nozick is that he believes in the divine right of property. His definition of "voluntary" is completely false and erroneous.
That was pretty good🙂
If you have a right to the concern of others you must first make them your slaves.
"Competing rights" is the key here. This is what's missing in the rationale of libertarians.
"Men fight not for freedom, but against the freedom of others" and all that
@@vhawk1951kl It's a theoretical construct designed to safguard one's freedom. I'm not seeing the problem.
@@vhawk1951kl It doesn't have to be descriptive in nature of anything in order to be meaningful.
@@vhawk1951kl A right is when other people say and act like you don't need permission to do something.
Wer ist hier wegen BWET
Rawls is the most important intellectual for our times. The number one academic for the 21st century.
Jesus christ
For freeloaders of course!
@@ekekonoiseyou need a theory, a theory of justice
@@noriantiri9310 sure. Let's take it from Hegel or Nietzsche. We're not all the same
@@ekekonoise Nietzsche has the worst moral theory ever, and completely misinterprets history for the sake of his own argument. If you actually think that might makes right, you are not a good person. I don't want to climb a ladder to better crush others, thank you very much. I believe that the strong should protect and serve the weak as a duty, and if that is a "slave morality" then I will gladly take it, since a master is nothing without his slave. Giving to others gives you power over them, and that power is virtuous. Using power for your own gains at the detriment of others is, and will always be immoral
And equality of opportunity? He forgot the principle 2a in Rawls. Bad Dworkin! Bad!
❤
Even (American) Republicans would have the world believe that they support the restriction that any inequality benefit the worst-off in society. The manifestations of this belief of theirs are in several forms, such as ‘Trickle Down Economics’ and the ‘Laffer Curve’.
Their is no such thing as trickle down economics
Rawls' original position was far ahead of its time. Called 'ridiculous' at the time and probably still seen as far-fetched to some today.
However, I think we know enough about biology and psychology to say, that the original position is in fact the position we are in at birth: we can't choose our genes, socio-economic class, culture, parents and their values, skin colour, and the list goes on.
Rawls' ethics are going to be influential to millennials that got shafted by student loans and things me thinks.
My B in
@@garrett9945 Killer comment. Not being sarcastic.
G. A. Cohen has some interesting critiques of Rawls's "difference principal." On youtube! There's a lecture from 2001. RIP G.A.!
None of that says anything of how we should act - it offers no ethical insight.
I like the characterization of wealth redistribution as “taking from the middle class to give to the lower classes”, as if the idea of redistributing wealth from the top 1% is just out of the question.
He was using that as an example precisely because it is NOT the standard example of redistribution. He’s demonstrating the radical nature of rawls’ principle that any change (ANY change) should benefit the least well off. Not benefit the greatest number, not benefit the overall opportunities…but the least we’ll off solely. So even if you fuck over the middle class and it helps the worst off…that is just.
The fact that you found it counterintuitive should have supported that it’s a good example
@@MrJustSomeGuy87
That is completely ignoring the premise of the original position from which it stems. Rawls’ “original position” was the position that a rational person would take if they did not know what situation they would be born into. He said that given that original position, you would have to conclude that any policy should benefit the least well off. Not that it would benefit ONLY the least well off.
Why not just go all out and argue that grinding up the wealthiest people each year and feeding them to the poor would benefit the least well off, so therefore Rawls would support that. That’s a ridiculous example, but it illustrates the point. Would a rational person choose that for society if they didn’t know the circumstances of their birth? No, obviously not.
And no rational person would agree in their original position that the middle class be fucked over to help the poor, as you are very likely to be born into the middle class. The same cannot be said for the rich as a modest redistribution drawn from their wealth is not going to push them into poverty, as it may for the middle class. Therefore more people would support redistribution from the rich as that is a risk they would be willing to take if it ensured that they can still manage should they be born into poverty.
@@TheCommonS3Nse your response doesn't make sense. As to the obviously wrong "if grinding rich would benefit", for Rawls that's a non starter because it violates principle 1, basic rights
The second principle doesn't necessitate that the middle class will be made poor. Clearly if they were, poorer than the poorest, they would then become the most worst off, and then justice would center around them.
The comment above is accurate about why they choose middle class for sake of argument - it's to distinguish from mere utilitarianism, which Rawls is distinctly arguing against, for a comprehensive alternative.
@@Delicoms
I made no claim that redistribution from the middle class would make them poor, only that it would have a material impact on their lives that it would not have for the rich.
Back to the original position, if I was choosing a system that I would be born into, I would not choose one where the burden of supporting the poor falls on the middle class and not the rich. I think that's a fairly universal principle given that most developed countries have a progressive income tax and not a regressive income tax or a flat tax.
It would be inaccurate to describe a progressive tax structure as "redistribution from the middle class to the poor", as most of the redistribution would be coming from the wealthy. Describing it that way doesn't offer any "distinction" from utilitarianism. It just creates a straw man that is easier to argue against. It's a scare tactic to convince people that anything that helps the poor must necessarily have a negative impact on the middle class, when that is clearly not the case.
The belief that you can fund the welfare state by taxing the top 1% is one of the oldest lies that populists have been telling forever. People keep buying it because most of them don't bother to do the math, but intellectuals are usually not as easy to manipulate.
The opening premise of amnesiacs is hard to imagine. How could you not know your own viewpoints, and orientations? "Far fetched."
It's not saying you could literally not know them. It's saying imagine it.
This is good exercise for your imagination and it looks like you could use it.
He’s blatantly misrepresenting Rawls’ argument to be that people DO choose to structure their societies based on the original position. Rawls’ argument, as I understand it, is that the most just society WOULD be based on the original position, not that our current society is structured that way.
Nozick is correct, but his views will always be unpopular bc they reject the biases of the masses.
In other words, they don't bow down to slave morality.
Says the guy who's a complete slave to the market ideology and the ideology of "property"
Anyone who takes just the arguments both the men make would stay on Nozick's side. I'm actually surprised that many people are simping for Rawls in the comments. You don't even have to be a libertarian to notics that Nozick just tore apart many of Rawls' propositions
You, of course, are the enlightened "unbiased" one
this just depends on your values
Note to self: Stop staring at Rawls' weirdly twisting lower lip while he talks!
Edit: THE PERSON IS NOT RAWLS.
That's not Rawls dear indian viewer, that's Ronald Dworkin. Rawls has been dead for quite some time now.
@@dann6067 Well, on the other hand this interview is from the late 70s!! Rawls was alive at that time...
@@dann6067 thanks... Though I must say that both have a remarkable semblance... I had seen Rawls's picture on the Google and that too of when he was older ... So maybe that's why I assumed it might have been him..Thanks for the correction anyways👍
Mistaken identity and all, I agree. That lip is very distracting! I hope someone checked on him after the show to make sure he wasn’t having a stroke.
Surely the big 70s glasses are more distracting?
Bro musta just got back from the dentist bc his lip looks numb af. That thing is just flapping around
Interesting mouth and glasses.
Bottom line: Nozick is right!
Nah. People are not property.
@@someonenotnoone people are their own property.
@@WINGS-0F-FREEDOM People are not property.
@@someonenotnoone you are your own property.
@@WINGS-0F-FREEDOM People are not property.
they need to be silenced.
Pretty sinister comment - who is 'they' here? People talking about ideas!?!
@@dougbamford nope philosophy needs tight control.
@@jarrodyuki7081 what do you think philosophy is? How exactly can you 'control' it?
@@dougbamford Don't feed the troll, dude
@@dougbamford by bringing the mighty Chinese Communist Party.
The arrogance of academia knows no bounds. Look at the homeless and destitute in Rawls’ world after decades of his theories being studied. The proof is out and the book is quaint not practical.
what?????
Finders Keepers is so great, just look at all the oil Saudi Arabia gets!
Were there homeless and destitute people before Rawls? Were other things going on that could also explain the continuance? Yes to both. Do better.
What a word salad