My mother taught me and my brother about the veil of ignorance. If we had to share something she would let one of us decide on how to divide it and then let the other choose which of the pieces to take.
there's an implicit assumption of fairness as equality in the proverbial cake-slicing. After all, it's just a mechanism to ensure equality. If we add more things into the equation, what's presumably just changes. ( for instance,if one has been starving for days , he seems to be entitled to have a bigger slice)
@@zwelthureinmyo3747 Point is, who is to say so? They have to already have a theory of justice or fairness. "Entitled" is the problematic concept. Sure "entitled" may sound intuitively reasonable, but first we have to test it with a theory of what this means. Cake slicing is simply a device for testing the concepts. Which would limit the application these concepts.
@@jonnsmusich I m just trying to point out an implicit assumption. In fact , I 've come to the realization that political philosophy is a game of intuition. For instance, in famous Ian Shapiro 's lecture series on moral foundations of politics, he reasoned with his students that classical utilitarianism would give rise to too much distribution meanwhile neo-classical utilitarianism is seen as too little interest in distribution. How to justify a normative claim without playing on our intuitions? Also, if we r to follow the lead of Brian Leiter n Raymond Geuss, i.e, intuitionism is dead , then ipso facto there's no such thing as moral foundations of politics. (Lol, not relevant to the discussion,but nonetheless,I can't stop myself )
Didn't Marx point out the exact same arguments in the contradictions of capitalism? Like, you can't grow an economy by squeezing labor forever. How is Rawls and Marx different here? (Edit: I've been following this channel for years and EVERY TIME i make a comment someone is a total JERK!)
@@Mixelvix You must be fun at parties, my actual original comment was, before the snobs crucify me, isn't this a bit like Marx. You're all dicks here though. What makes you think I can't defend myself?
Because his arguments about capitalism were not coming from dialectic materialism but rather empirical pondering, and was just wrong. Like we know now that labour doesn't get squeezed by capital due to the changing of commodities
Huh? This is the great legal scholar? Nothing is entitled. Plus, the powerful use the crap he espouses as a legal weapon for their own purposes. He gets an F.
'Theory',just that .Except among masticating academics, Rawls and 'Rawlsian stuff' had no impact in the real world. We didn't even study him in Political theory classes at the U. when he was alive.
My mother taught me and my brother about the veil of ignorance. If we had to share something she would let one of us decide on how to divide it and then let the other choose which of the pieces to take.
An idea first discussed by H L A Hart of Oxford.
there's an implicit assumption of fairness as equality in the proverbial cake-slicing. After all, it's just a mechanism to ensure equality. If we add more things into the equation, what's presumably just changes. ( for instance,if one has been starving for days , he seems to be entitled to have a bigger slice)
@@zwelthureinmyo3747 Point is, who is to say so? They have to already have a theory of justice or fairness. "Entitled" is the problematic concept. Sure "entitled" may sound intuitively reasonable, but first we have to test it with a theory of what this means. Cake slicing is simply a device for testing the concepts. Which would limit the application these concepts.
@@jonnsmusich I m just trying to point out an implicit assumption. In fact , I 've come to the realization that political philosophy is a game of intuition. For instance, in famous Ian Shapiro 's lecture series on moral foundations of politics, he reasoned with his students that classical utilitarianism would give rise to too much distribution meanwhile neo-classical utilitarianism is seen as too little interest in distribution. How to justify a normative claim without playing on our intuitions? Also, if we r to follow the lead of Brian Leiter n Raymond Geuss, i.e, intuitionism is dead , then ipso facto there's no such thing as moral foundations of politics.
(Lol, not relevant to the discussion,but nonetheless,I can't stop myself )
Thank you. I just watched a class on this. Free. Yale Ian Shapiro. It was excellent. I'm really enjoying this.
The one commentator showed his bias when he said there’s no one monumental between Mill and Rawls in political philosophy that warranted deep study
❤
Political Science class.
hmm I wonder what Rawls would say about South Africa today?
Interestingly, the main critics of Rawls were his own students...Thomas Pogge for example.
Didn't Marx point out the exact same arguments in the contradictions of capitalism? Like, you can't grow an economy by squeezing labor forever. How is Rawls and Marx different here? (Edit: I've been following this channel for years and EVERY TIME i make a comment someone is a total JERK!)
Shoehorn much?
@@Mixelvix You must be fun at parties, my actual original comment was, before the snobs crucify me, isn't this a bit like Marx. You're all dicks here though. What makes you think I can't defend myself?
Because his arguments about capitalism were not coming from dialectic materialism but rather empirical pondering, and was just wrong. Like we know now that labour doesn't get squeezed by capital due to the changing of commodities
Huh? This is the great legal scholar? Nothing is entitled. Plus, the powerful use the crap he espouses as a legal weapon for their own purposes. He gets an F.
'Theory',just that .Except among masticating academics, Rawls and 'Rawlsian stuff' had no impact in the real world. We didn't even study him in Political theory classes at the U. when he was alive.