Rawls' Two Principles of Justice

[coberst]

Rawls’ Two Principles of Justice

“A Theory of Justice” has, by page 53, developed the first statement of the two basic principles of justice.

First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.

Second: 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.

These two principles apply to the basic social structure governing rights and duties of all citizens as well as to the distribution of the economic advantages of the society to all citizens. The first principle establishes rights, just as does our constitution, and the second principle focuses upon the inequalities that are inherent in any such structure.

The next 200 pages of the book are dedicated to the clarification of the ambiguous phrases “every one’s advantage” and “open to all” in the second principle.

Just as in our constitutional system the rights are primary and concerns regarding fair distribution of advantages and disadvantages are subject to a code of justice.

”All social values”liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect”are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values is to everyone’s advantage.”

I have much yet to study and understand in this book but I think it’s most important feature is the concentration upon the matter of the second principle. This book is obviously written by a liberal as one can see by recognizing its focus upon the matters in the second principle. Liberals are inclined to seek deontological (rational and ‘universal’) claims for morality as opposed to a form usually labeled as utilitarianism or consequentialism.

Liberals take the stance that to agree on the fact means to agree on the morality of the situation. Any deviation is indefensible and reflects only selfish rationalization. Liberals find it almost impossible to respect the moral position of conservatives and conservatives find it impossible to judge that liberals are the intellectual equals of conservatives.

The apparent reason for this disjunction is the fact that liberals and conservatives seem to have “their own kind of morality” according to the analysis in ”The Morality of Politics” by W. H. Walsh.

“What we need to observe is that conservatives and liberals are working within different traditions of morality. The morality of the conservative is closed morality; it is the morality of a particular community. The morality of the liberal is an open morality; it is a morality which has nothing to do with any particular human groups, but applies to all men whatever their local affiliations.”

Lakoff and Johnson in their book “Philosophy in the Flesh” tend to think that the morality of liberals are that of ‘the nurturing mother’ while conservatives tend to be a ‘strict father’.

The web site http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~piccard/entropy/rawls.html provides an outline of John Rawls’ book “A Theory of Justice”.

[spot]

That's a very impressive post, coberst. Thank you. Perhaps I could expand on it slightly by mentioning The Veil of Ignorance, which to my understanding involves thinking yourself onto both sides of an issue and deliberately refusing to know which side includes you - voluntarily imposing a veil of ignorance over your personal position when evaluating the desirability of an outcome. There are recent threads discussing the partiality of patriotism, for example, to which I hope to contribute, in which Rawl's principles might have application. He takes pains to consider minority issues, too, avoiding "the tyranny of the majority" even where it might maximize the greatest good of the greatest number.

For a principle that he advanced forty years ago - the book you're reviewing was published in 1971 - I think it's not only weathered well but it's been adopted quite extensively in Western society. The glitch of the current decade might, of course, be more than a temporary setback.

[gmc]

None of this is terribly original. Just put of curiosity have you ever gone back to the original sorces for much of this kind of political philosophy? Thomas Paine-who surely as an american you must have at least heard of even if his "the age of Reason" would send the religious right in to apoplexy, Adam Smith weath of nations, cobbett et al. Most would be capitalists have never read Wealth of Nations and those that have ignore the liberal bits. Just as most would be socialists or communists have never read Marx or lenin and if they have ignore the bits they find uncomfortable.

All most writers like Rawl do (and I confess at this point I have not heard of him before so I speak with some ignorance) is regurgitate the same arguements and have the same debates that have been going on for years- assuming they have bothered to study in the first place-sometimes claim them as their own and put a spin on it all depending on their political viewpoint resulting in a hotch potch of ideas none of which is expressed clearly because it has to fill a book and is usually aimed at justifying the opoinions they held in the first place.

“What we need to observe is that conservatives and liberals are working within different traditions of morality. The morality of the conservative is closed morality; it is the morality of a particular community. The morality of the liberal is an open morality; it is a morality which has nothing to do with any particular human groups, but applies to all men whatever their local affiliations.”


Actually no they don't. They have the same judeo, christian, romano, greco traditions as everyone else. Unless of course they are chinese in which case confucius and bhuddism may also play a part. What is different is where they decide to take that tradition to justify what comes next.

If all men are created`equal then all men are of equal worth, or all men are created`equal but god ordained their position in society-(to paraphrase that well known hymn all creatures`great and small "the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate).

Liberals have a hard time because if all are equal and entitled to the same rights as yourself that means you have to tolerate idiots and it's impolite to shove your opinions down their throat. Reason is all very well but sometimes you need a club.

Conservatives also believe all are equal but believe society should be ordered and everyones position in it justified and they are just the people to do it in the nicest possible way of course.

Socialism is arguably the bastard son of the marriage of liberalism and conservatism. All should be equal but we are going to tell them how to be equal whether they like it or not.

[Accountable]

It seems that your sources think justice and equal distribution as synomymous. From each according to his abilities; to each according to his need. That's hardly justice and promotes mediocrity.



How about from each according to minimum budgetary justification; to each according to his effort.



I don't understand how anyone can call equal distribution of income and weath, just.



coberst wrote: Liberals take the stance that to agree on the fact means to agree on the morality of the situation. Any deviation is indefensible and reflects only selfish rationalization. Liberals find it almost impossible to respect the moral position of conservatives and conservatives find it impossible to judge that liberals are the intellectual equals of conservatives.

The apparent reason for this disjunction is the fact that liberals and conservatives seem to have “their own kind of morality” according to the analysis in ”The Morality of Politics” by W. H. Walsh.

“What we need to observe is that conservatives and liberals are working within different traditions of morality. The morality of the conservative is closed morality; it is the morality of a particular community. The morality of the liberal is an open morality; it is a morality which has nothing to do with any particular human groups, but applies to all men whatever their local affiliations.”
I don't understand the first sentence at all.



The statement about conservatives' inablity to consider liberals as intellectual equals is simply insulting. I hope the author offers ample support.



What is "open morality" and "closed morality"?

[spot]

gmc wrote: All most writers like Rawl do (and I confess at this point I have not heard of him before so I speak with some ignorance) is regurgitate the same arguements and have the same debates that have been going on for years- assuming they have bothered to study in the first placeI'd hate to be so dismissive of a professor of political philosophy at Harvard University, myself. The President of Harvard wrote in his obituary in the Harvard Gazette that "Few if any modern philosophers have had as decisive an impact on how we think about justice. Scholars in many different fields will continue to learn from him for generations to come." I think you can assume that he "bothered to study in the first place".

I'm not sure that you can refer to pre-20th century philosophers as "original sources", as though the subject were degenerative. Yes, I've read Paine, Smith and Marx. It doesn't mean I have no reason to read more modern syntheses, or developmental work like Rawl's.

[spot]

Accountable wrote: How about from each according to minimum budgetary justification; to each according to his effort.I'm all for that. Nurses would appreciate the recognition implied by it, and they might be able to enjoy a measure of affluence for once.

[Accountable]

gmc wrote: Liberals have a hard time because if all are equal and entitled to the same rights as yourself that means you have to tolerate idiots and it's impolite to shove your opinions down their throat. Reason is all very well but sometimes you need a club.



Conservatives also believe all are equal but believe society should be ordered and everyones position in it justified and they are just the people to do it in the nicest possible way of course.



Socialism is arguably the bastard son of the marriage of liberalism and conservatism. All should be equal but we are going to tell them how to be equal whether they like it or not.
As I understand the original post, it goes beyond rights and actually addresses wealth distribution.



I agree that even idiots have the same rights as I, but they have no more right to the wealth I accumulate than I do to theirs.

[coberst]

GMC

In matters of such fundamental importance I suspect there are not many original ideas.

[gmc]

spot wrote: I'd hate to be so dismissive of a professor of political philosophy at Harvard University, myself. The President of Harvard wrote in his obituary in the Harvard Gazette that "Few if any modern philosophers have had as decisive an impact on how we think about justice. Scholars in many different fields will continue to learn from him for generations to come." I think you can assume that he "bothered to study in the first place".

I'm not sure that you can refer to pre-20th century philosophers as "original sources", as though the subject were degenerative. Yes, I've read Paine, Smith and Marx. It doesn't mean I have no reason to read more modern syntheses, or developmental work like Rawl's.


As I freely admit I have never heard of him. As to him being a professor of political philosophy I'm afraid I decided a long time ago that my point of view was as valid as anyone elses bar no one. Arrogance, a realistic viewpoint or stupidity take your pick. If you want to be dismissive of him as well go right ahead. In my opinion your opinion holds as much weight as his and your perspicacity and erudition of equal value.

You can also find discussions about the meaning of justice in ancient greek and roman writings as well. I should perhaps have said some of the sources rather than original sources. As to it being degenerative, I hope not for all our sakes.

A lot of the way our western society has evolved and the we view the world and our sense of freedom has it's roots deep in the past, in a basic gut feeling that all are equal, perhaps it's as much apparent in the viking althing courts and celtic traditions of an elected kingship and the wee guy at the back of the crowd shouting "who do you think you are pal" (with a broad scots accent of course) as it is articulated and apparent in the political writings and political thought over the last two or three hundred years.

Political philosophy is a debate about how to structure society. Most people have strong sense of social justice, politics is how that is manipulated. ( that is either profound or sound bite nonsense I can't decide which at the moment)

posted by spot

I'm not sure that you can refer to pre-20th century philosophers as "original sources", as though the subject were degenerative. Yes, I've read Paine, Smith and Marx. It doesn't mean I have no reason to read more modern syntheses, or developmental work like Rawl's.




I would agree with you there but I think you get more out of it if you see where it's coming from. The more you read the more you realise there's more to what you read than you thought in the first place. Have you ever met an well read individual that thought they had read enough?

posted by accountable

I agree that even idiots have the same rights as I, but they have no more right to the wealth I accumulate than I do to theirs.


It seems that your sources think justice and equal distribution as synomymous. From each according to his abilities; to each according to his need. That's hardly justice and promotes mediocrity.

How about from each according to minimum budgetary justification; to each according to his effort.

I don't understand how anyone can call equal distribution of income and weath, just.


Depends how you got it does it not? If you steal it from an idiot is it his fault for being an idiot or yours for being a thief? In either case by what right do you keep it? Or let's say one of your ancestors as a warlord took the land and made the inhabitants his serfs. Hundreds of years later should you as a descendant be intitled to keep what he stole, after all he earned by taking the chanmce he might get killed? Since he also made the laws of the land if someone now comes alomng and takes it off you by making another law that says it is no longer yours but belongs to the country is that theft or a reestablishment of social justice?

To choose a more recent american example, if a company/individual wants to take someone's property and it is deemed to be in the common good is that theft? Why should someone's selfishness deprive the community.

Or to use Venezuela and what seem to be US worries about nationalisation of th oil fields. How do you decide who owns the land and it's resources? It used to be a king would allocate, what should happen in a republic, and if the republic decides a private company should not own the resources, why not?

How about political philosphy, to use sporting analogy, is a discussion on how to set up the snooker balls on the table and society's laws are a way of trying to control the knock on effect of the balls striking each other while history tries to explain the fight over the cue, except nobody is sure the cue exists so we have religon.

[coberst]

Accountable

Closed morality is morality based upon its utility for the group. Open morality is morality for the universe. Liberals look for universal and absolute categorical claims. Conservatives look to care for their own. At least that is as described by Walsh. I think it all originates with Henri Bergson.

I found this on the Internet about Bergson.

6. The two sources of morality and religion

Bergson himself says that his final book, The Two Sources of Morality and Religion, develops ideas from Creative Evolution. It attempts to show that there are two sources from which two kinds of morality and religion evolve. As always with Bergson, Kant is at issue, in this case his moral philosophy. And as usual, Bergson starts by differentiating within a mixture. Under the word “morality” or under the phrase “moral obligation,” there is a mixture of two kinds of morality.

There is the closed morality, whose religion is static, and there is the open morality, whose religion is dynamic. Closed morality and static religion are concerned with social cohesion. Nature has made certain species evolve in such a way that the individuals in these species cannot exist on their own. They are fragile and require the support of a community. One quickly thinks of bees, and Bergson, of course, refers to them. We can see again that there are bodily needs which must be satisfied. The force of these needs is the source of the closed morality. Because of these needs, there is a rigidity to the rules of closed moralities. Kant's moral philosophy has its source in such needs. The survival of the community requires that there be strict obedience: the categorical imperative. Yet, although Kant's categorical imperative is supposed to be universal, it is not, according to Bergson. It is limited and particular. Closed morality really concerns the survival of a society, my society. Therefore, it always excludes other societies. Indeed, for Bergson, closed morality is always concerned with war. And static religion, the religion of closed morality, is based on what Bergson calls the “fabulation function.” The fabulation function is a particular function of the imagination that creates “voluntary hallucinations.” The fabulation function takes our sense that there is a presence watching over us and invents images of gods. These images then insure strict obedience to the closed morality. In short, they insure social cohesion.

But, there is another kind of morality and religion, according to Bergson. The open morality and dynamic religion are concerned with creativity and progress. They are not concerned with social cohesion, and thus Bergson calls this morality “open” because it includes everyone. The open morality is genuinely universal and it aims at peace. The source of the open morality is what Bergson calls “creative emotions.” The difference between creative emotions and normal emotions consists in this: in normal emotions, we first have a representation which causes the feeling (I see my friend and then I feel happy); in creative emotion, we first have the emotion which then creates representations. So, Bergson gives us the example of the joy of a musician who, on the basis of emotion, a symphony, and who then produces representations of the music in the score. We can see here that Bergson has also finally explained how the leap of an intuition happens. The creative emotion makes one unstable and throws one out of the habitual mode of intelligence, which is directed at needs. Indeed, in The Two Sources, Bergson compares creative emotions to unstable mental states as those found in the mad. But what he really has in mind is mystical experience. For Bergson, however, mystical experience is not simply a disequilibrium. Genuine mystical experience must result in action; it cannot remain simple contemplation of God. This association of creative emotions with mystical experience means that, for Bergson, dynamic religion is mystical. Indeed, dynamic religion, because it is always creative, cannot be associated with any particular organized set of doctrines. A religion with organized – and rigid ” doctrines is always static.

The phrase with which we began, “moral obligation,” makes one think of Kantian duty. We have alluded to Kant on several occasions, but, let us conclude by examining Bergson's explicit criticism of Kant's moral philosophy. This criticism will demonstrate the strength of Bergson's moral philosophy and of his thought as a whole. According to Bergson, Kant's theory has made a “psychological error.” In any given society, there are many different, particular obligations. The individual in society may at some time desire to deviate from one particular obligation. When this illicit desire arises, there will be resistance from society but also from his habits. If the individual resists these resistances, a psychological state of tension or contraction occurs. The individual, in other words, experiences the rigidity of the obligation. Now, according to Bergson, when philosophers such as Kant attribute a severe aspect to duty, they have externalized this experience of obligation's inflexibility. In fact, for Bergson, if we ignore the multiplicity of particular obligations in any given society, and if instead we look at what he calls “the whole of obligation” (The Two Sources, p. 25), then we see that obedience to obligation is almost natural. According to Bergson, obligations, that is, customs, arise because of the natural need an individual has for the stability that a society can give. As a result of this natural need, society inculcates habits of obedience in the individual. Habituation means that obedience to the whole of obligation is, in fact, for the individual, effortless.

The psychological error then consists in externalizing an exceptional experience – which Bergson calls “resistance to the resistances” – into a moral theory. Duty becomes severe and inflexible. But there is more to this error. Kant believes that he can resolve obligation into rational elements. In the experience of resistance to the resistances, the individual has an illicit desire. And, since the individual is intelligent, the individual uses intelligence, a rational method, to act on itself. According to Bergson, what is happening here is that the rational method is merely restoring the force of the original tendency to obey the whole of obligation that society has inculcated in the individual. But as Bergson notes, the tendency is one thing; the rational method is another. The success of the rational method, however, gives us the illusion that the force with which an individual obeys any particular obligation comes from reason, that is, from the idea or representation, or better still, from the formula of the obligation.

But, there is another force. The second force is what Bergson calls “the impetus of love” (The Two Sources, p. 96). The impetus of love, like joy but also like sympathy, is a creative emotion. The emotion must be explicated into actions and representations. But, this process of explication can be extended. The representations that the mystic explicates can be further explicated into formulas, for example, the formula of each person being deserving of respect and dignity. These formulas, which are the expression of creation and love, are now able to be mixed with the formulas that aim solely to insure the stability of any given society. Since we are now speaking only of formulas, creation and cohesion, the two forces, are mixed together in reason. As before, whereas the rational method used in the experience of resistance to the resistances comes to explain the force of obedience, here in the mystical experience of the impetus of love the formulas come to explain the force of creation. A reversal has taken place. The very forces that have generated the formulas are instead now being explained by those very formulas. Indeed, this is the problem. How could some representation of intelligence have the power to train the will? How could an idea categorically demand its own realization? As Bergson says, “Re-establish the duality [of forces], the difficulties vanish” (The Two Sources, p. 96). The two forces are, however, but two complementary manifestations of life

[Accountable]

gmc wrote: As I freely admit I have never heard of him. As to him being a professor of political philosophy I'm afraid I decided a long time ago that my point of view was as valid as anyone elses bar no one. Arrogance, a realistic viewpoint or stupidity take your pick. If you want to be dismissive of him as well go right ahead. In my opinion your opinion holds as much weight as his and your perspicacity and erudition of equal value.



You can also find discussions about the meaning of justice in ancient greek and roman writings as well. I should perhaps have said some of the sources rather than original sources. As to it being degenerative, I hope not for all our sakes.



A lot of the way our western society has evolved and the we view the world and our sense of freedom has it's roots deep in the past, in a basic gut feeling that all are equal, perhaps it's as much apparent in the viking althing courts and celtic traditions of an elected kingship and the wee guy at the back of the crowd shouting "who do you think you are pal" (with a broad scots accent of course) as it is articulated and apparent in the political writings and political thought over the last two or three hundred years.



Political philosophy is a debate about how to structure society. Most people have strong sense of social justice, politics is how that is manipulated. ( that is either profound or sound bite nonsense I can't decide which at the moment)



posted by spot





I would agree with you there but I think you get more out of it if you see where it's coming from. The more you read the more you realise there's more to what you read than you thought in the first place. Have you ever met an well read individual that thought they had read enough?



posted by accountable











Depends how you got it does it not? If you steal it from an idiot is it his fault for being an idiot or yours for being a thief? In either case by what right do you keep it? Or let's say one of your ancestors as a warlord took the land and made the inhabitants his serfs. Hundreds of years later should you as a descendant be intitled to keep what he stole, after all he earned by taking the chanmce he might get killed? Since he also made the laws of the land if someone now comes alomng and takes it off you by making another law that says it is no longer yours but belongs to the country is that theft or a reestablishment of social justice?



To choose a more recent american example, if a company/individual wants to take someone's property and it is deemed to be in the common good is that theft? Why should someone's selfishness deprive the community.



Or to use Venezuela and what seem to be US worries about nationalisation of th oil fields. How do you decide who owns the land and it's resources? It used to be a king would allocate, what should happen in a republic, and if the republic decides a private company should not own the resources, why not?



How about political philosphy, to use sporting analogy, is a discussion on how to set up the snooker balls on the table and society's laws are a way of trying to control the knock on effect of the balls striking each other while history tries to explain the fight over the cue, except nobody is sure the cue exists so we have religon.
How about if I worked for it, earning it in a socially acceptable manner? You didn't address that extreme.

[Accountable]

coberst wrote: Accountable



Closed morality is morality based upon its utility for the group. Open morality is morality for the universe. Liberals look for universal and absolute categorical claims. Conservatives look to care for their own. At least that is as described by Walsh. I think it all originates with Henri Bergson.



I found this on the Internet about Bergson.



6. The two sources of morality and religion

Bergson himself says that his final book, The Two Sources of Morality and Religion, develops ideas from Creative Evolution. It attempts to show that there are two sources from which two kinds of morality and religion evolve. As always with Bergson, Kant is at issue, in this case his moral philosophy. And as usual, Bergson starts by differentiating within a mixture. Under the word “morality” or under the phrase “moral obligation,” there is a mixture of two kinds of morality.



There is the closed morality, whose religion is static, and there is the open morality, whose religion is dynamic. Closed morality and static religion are concerned with social cohesion. Nature has made certain species evolve in such a way that the individuals in these species cannot exist on their own. They are fragile and require the support of a community. One quickly thinks of bees, and Bergson, of course, refers to them. We can see again that there are bodily needs which must be satisfied. The force of these needs is the source of the closed morality. Because of these needs, there is a rigidity to the rules of closed moralities. Kant's moral philosophy has its source in such needs. The survival of the community requires that there be strict obedience: the categorical imperative. Yet, although Kant's categorical imperative is supposed to be universal, it is not, according to Bergson. It is limited and particular. Closed morality really concerns the survival of a society, my society. Therefore, it always excludes other societies. Indeed, for Bergson, closed morality is always concerned with war. And static religion, the religion of closed morality, is based on what Bergson calls the “fabulation function.” The fabulation function is a particular function of the imagination that creates “voluntary hallucinations.” The fabulation function takes our sense that there is a presence watching over us and invents images of gods. These images then insure strict obedience to the closed morality. In short, they insure social cohesion.



But, there is another kind of morality and religion, according to Bergson. The open morality and dynamic religion are concerned with creativity and progress. They are not concerned with social cohesion, and thus Bergson calls this morality “open” because it includes everyone. The open morality is genuinely universal and it aims at peace. The source of the open morality is what Bergson calls “creative emotions.” The difference between creative emotions and normal emotions consists in this: in normal emotions, we first have a representation which causes the feeling (I see my friend and then I feel happy); in creative emotion, we first have the emotion which then creates representations. So, Bergson gives us the example of the joy of a musician who, on the basis of emotion, a symphony, and who then produces representations of the music in the score. We can see here that Bergson has also finally explained how the leap of an intuition happens. The creative emotion makes one unstable and throws one out of the habitual mode of intelligence, which is directed at needs. Indeed, in The Two Sources, Bergson compares creative emotions to unstable mental states as those found in the mad. But what he really has in mind is mystical experience. For Bergson, however, mystical experience is not simply a disequilibrium. Genuine mystical experience must result in action; it cannot remain simple contemplation of God. This association of creative emotions with mystical experience means that, for Bergson, dynamic religion is mystical. Indeed, dynamic religion, because it is always creative, cannot be associated with any particular organized set of doctrines. A religion with organized – and rigid ” doctrines is always static.



The phrase with which we began, “moral obligation,” makes one think of Kantian duty. We have alluded to Kant on several occasions, but, let us conclude by examining Bergson's explicit criticism of Kant's moral philosophy. This criticism will demonstrate the strength of Bergson's moral philosophy and of his thought as a whole. According to Bergson, Kant's theory has made a “psychological error.” In any given society, there are many different, particular obligations. The individual in society may at some time desire to deviate from one particular obligation. When this illicit desire arises, there will be resistance from society but also from his habits. If the individual resists these resistances, a psychological state of tension or contraction occurs. The individual, in other words, experiences the rigidity of the obligation. Now, according to Bergson, when philosophers such as Kant attribute a severe aspect to duty, they have externalized this experience of obligation's inflexibility. In fact, for Bergson, if we ignore the multiplicity of particular obligations in any given society, and if instead we look at what he calls “the whole of obligation” (The Two Sources, p. 25), then we see that obedience to obligation is almost natural. According to Bergson, obligations, that is, customs, arise because of the natural need an individual has for the stability that a society can give. As a result of this natural need, society inculcates habits of obedience in the individual. Habituation means that obedience to the whole of obligation is, in fact, for the individual, effortless.



The psychological error then consists in externalizing an exceptional experience – which Bergson calls “resistance to the resistances” – into a moral theory. Duty becomes severe and inflexible. But there is more to this error. Kant believes that he can resolve obligation into rational elements. In the experience of resistance to the resistances, the individual has an illicit desire. And, since the individual is intelligent, the individual uses intelligence, a rational method, to act on itself. According to Bergson, what is happening here is that the rational method is merely restoring the force of the original tendency to obey the whole of obligation that society has inculcated in the individual. But as Bergson notes, the tendency is one thing; the rational method is another. The success of the rational method, however, gives us the illusion that the force with which an individual obeys any particular obligation comes from reason, that is, from the idea or representation, or better still, from the formula of the obligation.

But, there is another force. The second force is what Bergson calls “the impetus of love” (The Two Sources, p. 96). The impetus of love, like joy but also like sympathy, is a creative emotion. The emotion must be explicated into actions and representations. But, this process of explication can be extended. The representations that the mystic explicates can be further explicated into formulas, for example, the formula of each person being deserving of respect and dignity. These formulas, which are the expression of creation and love, are now able to be mixed with the formulas that aim solely to insure the stability of any given society. Since we are now speaking only of formulas, creation and cohesion, the two forces, are mixed together in reason. As before, whereas the rational method used in the experience of resistance to the resistances comes to explain the force of obedience, here in the mystical experience of the impetus of love the formulas come to explain the force of creation. A reversal has taken place. The very forces that have generated the formulas are instead now being explained by those very formulas. Indeed, this is the problem. How could some representation of intelligence have the power to train the will? How could an idea categorically demand its own realization? As Bergson says, “Re-establish the duality [of forces], the difficulties vanish” (The Two Sources, p. 96). The two forces are, however, but two complementary manifestations of life
You're taxing my A.D.D. young'un. I'll have to read this and get back to you.

[gmc]

posted by accountable

How about if I worked for it, earning it in a socially acceptable manner? You didn't address that extreme.


Fine by me. On the other hand I would point out that being leader of a war band and taking what you wanted used to be socially acceptable as well. So did owning slaves and a tobacco plantation. Almost anything can be socially acceptable if you persuade enough people it's O.K. enough that you can do it and/or you are strong enough not to have to worry what people think. Morality is an elastic concept.

You're taxing my A.D.D. young'un. I'll have to read this and get back to you.


and mine. I have this theory that to be considered a philosopher you have to use your language in apparently logical but in reality spurious forms that lead people in a logic loop that has them giving in and saying yes i get your point when in reality they don't but they don't want to be thought thick by admitting it. Then I have been accused of being a cynic to which I normally reply which kind.

It's midnight now and I have to work tomorrow. :-5

[koan]

that's some serious typing, coberst!

If you copy/pasted any of it I'd like to know where from as it looks like a good site. If it's your own summarizing...extremely well done!

I find it of interest that selfishness has actually got it's own ethics category. Some people truly think that looking after self interest alone is the best way to serve a community. When you look at the vast differences in ethics theories it is easy to see why coming up with a system everyone agrees is fair would become quite difficult. Justice is a very subjective concept. Just look at some of the capital punishment threads.

IMO, as long as ownership of private property is considered the greatest right...justice will have its obstacles.

Egoism

[coberst]

Koan

I am sorry. I thought that I had made it clear that this is copied from the Internet. It is copied from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[spot]

coberst wrote: I am sorry. I thought that I had made it clear that this is copied from the Internet. It is copied from Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyI suspect that the question related to the original post in the thread, rather than the latest. As you say, the Encyclopedia post was attributed.

I'm ambivalent about posting screen-length reference material into a discussion thread. It can be needed, it can even be welcome, but it tends to provide a disjunction in the flow, it's so out of physical proportion compared with anything that the remaining contributors can compose. The further advantage of an offsite reference to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/ is that it leaves space for a sentence or two of undwarfed poster commentary alongside the URL, and a brief note explaining the contextual relevance.

Mind you, it's nothing like so sinful as quoting bible texts. Man, that stirs up the hornets like nothing else. You want to get slapped down, quote the Sermon on the Mount to them.

[koan]

Actually, it was the Bergson post that I wondered about, I jumped to the meat and missed the "I copied this from the internet" statement.

The actual link, if it is http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html, is quite a good one. Posting it is not only good practice but allows people to check out the whole place. I'm hoping to get back there at some point again today to browse around. (if the link is there, pardon me, I couldn't see it...then again it is now very early in the morning)

TBH I skimmed the post a bit because of the length but want to read it in more detail as well. Ethics and morality are fascinating subjects and, IMO, Justice theory is a subject of some concern as well.

As a side note, if you put quote boxes around the pasted material and interject a few comments between it makes the post more attractive and readable. I hate to see really intriguing posts wasted for aesthetic reasons. If certain points stand out that you want to discuss specifically, could you repaste them in short form?

cheers.

[koan]

oops. that's how early it is...spot had that covered already.

I'm going to drink more coffee and come back later.

[spot]

gmc wrote: I'm afraid I decided a long time ago that my point of view was as valid as anyone elses bar no one. Arrogance, a realistic viewpoint or stupidity take your pick. If you want to be dismissive of him as well go right ahead. In my opinion your opinion holds as much weight as his and your perspicacity and erudition of equal value.The difference between Rawl and me is the degree of self-construction involved. In writing his book he has changed himself. The Rawl before the book is a different person to the Rawl after. The process of creation has built not only the book itself, but also the person who wrote it. The words on that two-pound coin in your pocket, "Building on the shoulders of giants", doesn't indicate where the giants came from. They came from within themselves. Your opinions are the result of application on your part. The posts of "gmc-Posts:1,836" are not the same as you'd have made when you first arrived, and neither are mine. The opinions of Rawl are not the same as they were before he built his book. His payback for the effort isn't just the subsequent recognition of the quality of his thinking, it is the quality of his thinking.

[spot]

Accountable wrote: I don't understand how anyone can call equal distribution of income and weath, just.But Rawl does no such thing. His two principles allow huge disparity between the wealthy and the poor, so long as the poor don't suffer disproportionately to the rich. Where there is disproportionate suffering, there is a question of justice to address, and that's what he sets out to do.

Addressing the issue of disproportionate suffering between the poor and the rich is a practical issue, and reducing the disparity is an arguable (though obviously controvertial) solution. The self-imposed reduction of the salary of the new President of Bolivia ("The newly elected Morales will now have a monthly salary of about $1,800") is a case in point, since it has the effect of capping his entire civil service payroll. You may doubt his political credo, but I hope you'd appreciate his intentions.

[coberst]

Spot

I think you have made a very good point and I just want to add a little to it. I have discovered that writing essays is a necessary condition for understanding. This may not be the case for everyione but I bet everyone could improve their writing and their reading and their understanding skills if they put more effort into writing.

[gmc]

posted by spot

The difference between Rawl and me is the degree of self-construction involved. In writing his book he has changed himself. The Rawl before the book is a different person to the Rawl after. The process of creation has built not only the book itself, but also the person who wrote it. The words on that two-pound coin in your pocket, "Building on the shoulders of giants", doesn't indicate where the giants came from. They came from within themselves. Your opinions are the result of application on your part. The posts of "gmc-Posts:1,836" are not the same as you'd have made when you first arrived, and neither are mine. The opinions of Rawl are not the same as they were before he built his book. His payback for the effort isn't just the subsequent recognition of the quality of his thinking, it is the quality of his thinking.




The posts of "gmc-Posts:1,836" are not the same as you'd have made when you first arrived, and neither are mine.


Very true, I have had to learn how to put my point of view more clearly and have rethought some of my opinions. However, the intellectual challenge I get here is one of the appeals of this forum. You can only sharpen your wits if you have a quality whetstone to practice on.

While I take your point about the payback being the quality of his thinking.

However, the fact that Rawl is a professor of philosphy impresses me not at all.

The two principles seem to me at least superficially to be a regurgitation of utilitarianism

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRbentham.htm

Another important influence on Bentham was the philosopher David Hume. In books such as A Fragment on Government (1776) and Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Bentham argued that the proper objective of all conduct and legislation is "the greatest happiness of the greatest number". According to Bentham, "pain and pleasure are the sovereign masters governing man's conduct". As the motive of an act is always based on self-interest, it is the business of law and education to make the sanctions sufficiently painful in order to persuade the individual to subordinate his own happiness to that of the community.


posted by coberst

The next 200 pages of the book are dedicated to the clarification of the ambiguous phrases “every one’s advantage” and “open to all” in the second principle.

Just as in our constitutional system the rights are primary and concerns regarding fair distribution of advantages and disadvantages are subject to a code of justice.

”All social values”liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect”are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values is to everyone’s advantage.”