How do you guys feel about Rawls?

How do you guys feel about Rawls?

A good start, ethics and epistemology is prior to political philosophy or it's sectarianism and opportunism all the way down.

The veil premise is probably the best jump off point for any discussion about socialism.

For example, I'm currently in SE Asia and as I was walking down the street to find breakfast I came across a woman with a parapalegic man in her lap begging for change. He was almost comatose looking, and her hand and toenails were both long and filled with dirt, just to explain a little bit about the deplorable state in which they both lived. Needless to say, as a communist this ruined my fucking morning and I still cannot get back to a normal state of mind after this image of poverty no doubt in part caused by capitalism.

Anyway, take this man's situation. Behind the veil of ignorance, this man's position (and no doubt many others like him) is a possibility for people behind the veil. Prince fucking Harry, after lifting the veil could end up in his position. So the only logical way to make sure you would be taken care of and able to pursue any sort of life would be to make sure that from your "original position" behind the veil that you agree with the other identity-less souls to a communist system of economy. Even someone like Bill Gates would have to agree to this sort of system, or else he could end up a mentally retarded homeless person on the streets of San Francisco. Any logical person who weighed their options would be forced to agree out of self preservation.

The only problem as it stands is that the superstructure's ideology convinces people to take the other road. "Yeah, there are risks but you could still end up Bill Gates! Come on buddy, prove you're worth and you'll be fine no problem! You're a smart guy right? Don't worry, everyone else will fail but you're smart so you'll be fine! Don't you want to be recognized and appreciated for your smarts"? Capitalism is touted as a fair game in which the hard workers get ahead and are rewarded.

Behind the veil, everyone and their mother is convinced they are in fact winners and they'll be fine no problem. When in fact, should they end up our parapalegic friend…then what? People aren't even allowed to consider it.

Anyway, Rawls created a super useful premise that socialism could be using to advance our premise. Someone go ahead and try to disprove my theory that the only logical premise from behind the veil of ignorance is communism or at least socialism that will eventually evolve into communism. I don't think you can rationally take into account every possibility of incarnation and still not agree with the rest of society to implement socialism to protect your self interest.

Honestly one of the worst political philosophers I've ever read.

Veil of ignorance is tied with rousseaus "general will" for one of the most stupid liberal arguments ever advanced.
It's a sign of how academics in the West have for decades been without any meaningful illiberal opposition to actually challenge the base fundamental axioms of what they believe in (equality and individualism) that a man like rawls, with arguments a 15 year old could skewer became one of the most prominent philosophers of modern times.

I mean fucking hell why is liberal philosophy so bad? Why?!

We need some new Nietzsche, Confucius or Aristotle to come back and BTFO all these bad arguments.

Returning to classical philosophy is such a breath of fresh air after reading garbage like Rousseau, Voltaire and Rawls.

Working on it fam

Shiggy.

One of the smartest liberals ever to live. His veil of ignorance argument actually supports socialism when you look at how socdem policies turn out in the real world. While he mistakenly failed to realize the potential of socialism to liberate everyone given sufficient automation, he still provided a brilliant and nigh irrefutable metaethical framework for political philosophy, one that turns out to suppor socialism when closely examined. Great philosopher overall.

Dude cuts like a fucking razor, and he will run a linebacker over in the gap. Too bad his o-line sucks ass.

"Whining a lot without providing any real counterarguments to the premise and instead just spewing buzzwords to try and look smart", the post

Seriously, Holla Forums, come back when you actually try to engage the concept instead of wittering.

Veil of ignorance is also a really useful anti-tank weapon, because stalinists are convinced that theyre not gonna be in the gulag for thoughtcrime. It raises some interesting questions about revolutionary violence, though. If it's applied just as much to the construction of a new society, then the concept of finding oneself as one of the bystanders inevitably harmed during the uprising is not particularly palatable.

On the other hand, the whole thing is also kinda dangerous because one could easily say "well in x society after we do a lot of repression there will be no prisons or gulags because everyone will be perfectlu behaved and fit the social model perfectly". I'm incined to find such utopias impossible and dangerous, leading me to believe that the Veil is only useful when attempting to construct a realistic anf non-utopian alternative.

His Veil argument turned me into a classical liberal after deciding socialism would most likely put us all worse off than before.

When deciding questions of whether or not we should have the death penalty for premeditated mass murder, I don't treat that as a problem of “what if nature rolls the dice in such a way that I find myself committing mass murder? Surely it would be advantageous for me to oppose the death penalty, just in case?”

The veil of ignorance puts the reader into a lottery, where one’s well-being is chanced independent of your actual values, talents and choices. This incentivizes minimizing your personal loss, instead of grounding outcomes in principles like merit.

Looking out for No. 1 in this regard isn’t going to produce a dynamic civilization that lands on the moon. That requires an unequal distribution of resources favoring talented doers, and not rewarding the dim and shiftless at their expense to hedge your personal bet.

The individual behind the veil of ignorance is divorced from their values, their community and all these frames of reference, essentially an atomic individual. It could be this individual just can’t meaningfully make the kind of choices Rawls requires.

As a final thought, in Rawls’ experiment, you’re manifesting the role of a leader in imagining our social structure. As any leader will tell you, “what about me?” is an awful premise to start from when you’re responsible for the well-being of others.

There are countless other criticisms I could make. The fact it doesn't even make sense as an internal thought exercise as it's impossible for someone behind the veil to be value free and then take what is an implicitly ideological choice as to the make up of society.

You are attracted to it because it seems like a novel argument to you. In reality it's just a cheap rhetorical flourish. It's a sign of how morally, philosophically and spiritually bankrupt liberalism is that philosophy as bad as this and the "general will" is the best it can conjure up.

Note that it's also a profoundly selfish way of looking at the world and wanting it to work.

Only in completely atomized liberal societies could such notions even carry currency in the first place.

The problem with Rawls and liberal "philosophers" in general is that as well meaning as he may have been his arguments leave intact the existing problems with the current system and hence can be re appropriated by shysters who say they're following his arguments through their good intentions. People often think a welfare state follows from the premise of "society judged by it's least advantaged" argument but you could just as easily argue for trickle down or identity politics Hillary corporate fashismo with it as long as you say your just a soul whose intentions are good, oh lord please don't let me be misunderstood… da da de duh.

The problem with Rawls is the problem with a lot of philosophers, people mistake their intentions with being their actual arguments or what their actual arguments "prove." Rawls is a liberal so hence they believe the results of his arguments must be a "liberal" society. The problem is he never really offers solutions just a re-diagnosing of problems we already know exist with capitalism. Somehow he became philosophical Keynes without the work or the arguments Keynes had.

...

Let's say there is a society where 50 % live in wealth, whereas the other 50 % are their slaves (thus why the other 50 % are rich).
In my original position behind the veil i have 50:50 chance to end up rich. I would take the gamble. So how does the veil argument say anything at all about justice?

Stopped reading after this. Presumptuous, considering the quality of some of the leftist philosophers I've seen.

Talking about a general will seems very much compatible with a collectivist outlook, don't you think? Was Rousseau really talking much about people as if they were born with fixed personalities and opinions, and being individually very different?


Yeah, I find the veil thing a really corny argument.

If that was supposed to be an argument for the American Way of Life(TM) against the Soviet Style, it looks rather silly.

I'm not a capitalist, but that doesn't mean I'm not a harsh meritocrat.

I believe in things like cognitive exams, the unequal nature of man and so on, and I see no reason for us to create a society that panders to mediocrity.

I'm not sure, the general will is basically just "the will of the people", which, when unadulterated, happens to coincide with liberalism - you know, completely coincidentally of course.

I found Rawls persuasive when I read him in school, as a kind of ex post justification for social democracy under capitalism.

It bothers me that he apparently completely refused to seriously engage with Marx or any philosophy outside of Nozick and other Westerners.

...

justice/morality/ethics iz poop spook

Stop getting triggered so easily.

Hi David

wtf?

Analytic philosophers seem to share a tendency of not engaging with either Hegel or Marx, and any other thinkers in the "continental" tradition they dislike. It's a huge problem for a movement that sees itself as replacing all of traditional philosophy. How do you *know* that Hegel is worthless if you haven't fucking read him?

He will become the new forced meme of Holla Forums after Bordiga.