Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

The Original Position

OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 4:32:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Lets reinvigorate the politics forum a little. I don't have time to flush out the full case for this so I'll try to put it in a nut shell.

Rawls envisions a hypothetical scenario where essentially these disembodied minds reason according to their best interest how society should be structured. They have no knowledge of their conception of the good, they're basically self-interested actors deliberating between each other to reach these optimal conditions to provide the justification for a contractarian justification for his two principles of justice.

Rawls derives these two principles from the thought experiment:
1. Everyone is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and b) attached to positions and offices open to all.

So basically, inequalities are just in Rawls' view as far as they benefit the least fortunate. I know this isn't extensive, but I need to get studying for finals.

Do you agree with Rawls?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 4:39:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I like the original position itself, but his conclusions I'm not totally in line with. Check out some of the critiques by Nozick and others.

However, as I said, I think starting conversation at the point of the original position is very useful.

Oh, and something to toss around in your head, think of what would happen if we said the "original position" extends to an embryo. Compare that to if the original position only includes "born" humans.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 4:43:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 4:32:18 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Lets reinvigorate the politics forum a little. I don't have time to flush out the full case for this so I'll try to put it in a nut shell.

Rawls envisions a hypothetical scenario where essentially these disembodied minds reason according to their best interest how society should be structured. They have no knowledge of their conception of the good, they're basically self-interested actors deliberating between each other to reach these optimal conditions to provide the justification for a contractarian justification for his two principles of justice.

Rawls derives these two principles from the thought experiment:
1. Everyone is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and b) attached to positions and offices open to all.

So basically, inequalities are just in Rawls' view as far as they benefit the least fortunate. I know this isn't extensive, but I need to get studying for finals.

Do you agree with Rawls?

Read Sandel.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 4:56:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 4:39:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
I like the original position itself, but his conclusions I'm not totally in line with. Check out some of the critiques by Nozick and others.

However, as I said, I think starting conversation at the point of the original position is very useful.

Oh, and something to toss around in your head, think of what would happen if we said the "original position" extends to an embryo. Compare that to if the original position only includes "born" humans.

Yeah, I can see why Nozick might take offense to the idea that his philosophy can be dismissed in accordance with this idea of an overriding, a priori reasoning that tends towards egalitarianism. I personally agree with him on this and take issue with the difference principle.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 5:49:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 4:32:18 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Lets reinvigorate the politics forum a little. I don't have time to flush out the full case for this so I'll try to put it in a nut shell.

Rawls envisions a hypothetical scenario where essentially these disembodied minds reason according to their best interest how society should be structured. They have no knowledge of their conception of the good, they're basically self-interested actors deliberating between each other to reach these optimal conditions to provide the justification for a contractarian justification for his two principles of justice.

Rawls derives these two principles from the thought experiment:
1. Everyone is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and b) attached to positions and offices open to all.

So basically, inequalities are just in Rawls' view as far as they benefit the least fortunate. I know this isn't extensive, but I need to get studying for finals.

Do you agree with Rawls?

No