SCW#4- In paragraph 61, Socrates outlines a program that would assure Athens of having good rulers and good government. Clarify exactly what the program is, what its problems and benefits are, and how it could be put into action. Then decide whether the program would work. You may consider whether it would work for our time, for Socrates’ time or both. If possible, use examples (hypothetical or real) to bolster your argument.
If we asked a sampling the American population to rate their satisfaction with the overall performance of the government, we would likely encounter a range of differing responses, all stemming from an array of attitudes, cultures, religions, and beliefs. Ironically, as we learn from history we discover these attitudes have probably been around since the first societies. The attitudes of those in Plato’s era are no different, especially after the loss of his beloved Athens government to the Spartans (Jacobus 447). In his Republic, Plato uses the allegory of the cave to introduce his idea of the dualistic nature between mind and body. Through the dialogues of his characters Socrates and Glaucon, Plato reveals a program for political success and uncovers a very strong argument for how his plan, if followed correctly and adhered to by everyone, could assure the success of Athens. If we deconstruct examples using Plato’s theory, we find his argument to be structurally sound and applicable to not only the Athens of his time, but to current societies as well.
In his allegory, Plato reveals to us his idea of the perfect ruler or leader. To understand these ideas we need to understand what Plato is attempting to sell us with his metaphor of the cave and its components. Plato’s first step is to describe (via Socrates) that man are slaves; they are born and grow in the cave “with their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads” (Plato, 450). Socrates goes on explaining that because they were born to the cave, the only view the slaves have ever seen is what has been reflected by the fire on the wall in front of them. The shadows seen on the cave walls are the only truth the prisoners know. To Plato, we (humans) are like the prisoners of the cave, depending only on our sensory experiences to tell us what is real. The easiest way to bring this to life is to refer to the film, “The Matrix.” If we remember from the movie, all human beings are basically born connected to a computer, and immediately placed into a coma. The computer creates a digital world (the Matrix) that sends signals to the brain that simulate sensory perception in the coma patient. In other words, a fake life is created and sent directly to the brain without any need for the use of a conscious body. Most people live in the Matrix and never stop to question the reality of the life they currently live. Like Plato’s cave, many may die in the Matrix. The “philosopher” to Plato, is the one who realizes that perhaps what he sees portrayed on the walls in front of him does not encapsulate all of life. The philosopher is the one who escapes the cave because of his persistence in questioning the reality of what was in front of him, and it is he who has an ethical obligation to seek the truth and try to educate those who have yet to break the chains that bind them to a life of lies. To Plato, these philosophers are the ones who are best fit to lead a society via government or politics. Although the symbolism in his allegory does not stop there, our knowledge up to this point of the philosopher and his duties will allow us to proceed.
Now that we have put into context Plato’s symbolism, let’s examine his suggestions for the ideal philosopher. The first of Plato’s explanations is introduced when Socrates tells Glaucon “there will be no injustice in compelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of others” (Plato, 456). Think of this like a set of rules or even a checklist of must-have duties for the philosopher (ruler); Plato is saying that first and foremost the leader must possess the ability and desire to care for the well being of everyone else. He understands the importance of the human connection and the imperative role it plays for a successful leader and society. The fact that this is the first requirement he gives us, may reveal its priority or in relation to the next. Of course living by this rule could yield a number of positive benefits such as increased feelings of patriotism, brotherhood, and compassion. A perhaps Machiavellian counterargument, could claim that too much love for fellow man by the leadership could result in a “soft” government, therefore jeopardizing (weakening) the state as a whole, rendering it “at-risk.” I think if we are to take Plato seriously here, we should at least consider the idea that if we are truly caring for everyone, perhaps there are no real risks to consider after all. It is my contention that although Plato is identifying necessary characteristics for leaders of the state, he is not limiting the leaders to consider the lives of only those in said state; I believe Plato feels a true philosopher ought to care for all men, regardless of nationality. If all mean are cared for equally, the strength of the state in regards to safety should be irrelevant. Socrates goes on to tell Glaucon that “Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark” (Plato, 456). Plato understands that the philosopher, knowing what he now knows of truth, will have a daunting task ahead of him due to the fact that many people (if not most) will not share his recent enlightenments. Plato is saying that the leader, just because he is leader, cannot make the best decisions on everyone’s behalf if he himself is not skilled at deciphering between lies and truth. The great leader has to know how everyone will be impacted by every decision. Just because the philosopher may recognize that the antithesis of truth exists, does not necessarily give him right to make decisions without using the same logic that led him to the truth in the first place. By going back to the cave, not only will the philosopher hone his skill of distinguishing between truth and lies, he will also gain perspective on the potential lies that everyone else may perceive as truth. This allows the leader to see all points of view and have empathy for his fellow man (as unenlightened as he may be). By demanding these traits be present in our leaders, we can easily distinguish between those who are leading to increase the good of all, and those who are leading to increase the good for themselves. “And philosophy is not for everybody, but only for those gifted people who are capable of it, and who can safely be entrusted with the running of the educational process, and indeed of the entire state” (Hare, 50). In review, Plato’s two main rules of his program are to understand the duty of caring for your fellow man, and actively seeking out the truth in the world based on lies. This is a most important dynamic because “he [the philosopher] knows the Good and everything which depends on it, can really educate people instead of just pandering to their desires and ensnaring them.” (Hare, 50) The bottom line here is that a leader who makes the decisions ought to spend time analyzing people and the world they live in, if he is to make decisions based on their best interests. In review, we have two fundamental requirements for leaders set forth by Plato, which in his opinion will assure success of the state. His two requirements are, to care deeply for others and to remain familiar and close to lives of those who are entrusted to your care.
The strength in Plato’s argument lies in his ability to create a check and balance system if you will, that ensures the good can be attained and prolonged. If we were to look at various events in our world’s history, we may find that many of the atrocities that have occurred can likely be attributed to the leadership lacking in one of the areas previously outlined. I particularly enjoy Plato’s plan because if it were to be strictly adhered to, many of the blunders in our history could have been avoided. Both in slavery and the Holocaust, people were used as means to ends rather than ends in themselves. Although Hitler thought he was doing "good" by his country, he failed to recognize that a true leader would have considered and empathized with the Jews on the same level as the Germans and everyone else. With slavery, it wasn’t until our leaders realized that slaves needed to be cared for and considered equally to non-slaves. Once this consideration was in place, leaders saw the situation for what it really was and abolished slavery. If we look at an offense on a lesser scale as the aforementioned, we can still find applicability in Plato’s doctrine. For example let’s look at President Nixon and the Watergate scandal. Without diving into all the details of that event, let’s ask if Nixon’s actions were done out of the necessity to comply with “the Good” that Plato has outlined for us. Were his (Nixon’s) actions based out of deep caring and compassion for others? Were his actions an attempt to educate people on the truth while sympathizing with their situation? The answer to both is clearly: No. Nixon’s actions were based not on the good (as Plato would say) but on himself, something Plato recognized long ago as not effective for leadership. It is not the conclusion that these historical events and the respective leaders were deliberately opposing Plato’s advice, simply that had they considered the advice of Plato, they simply may not have happened.
For Plato’s program to work, it has to be taken seriously and carried out diligently. The true leader (philosopher) does not lead for personal gain, “being neither pleasure-seeking nor ambitious, the true philosopher, alone qualified to rule through his knowledge of the good, can leave the pursuit of material pleasures to the lower orders” (Hare, 60). If leaders were to follow these guidelines, success of the state could be attainable in any time, past current, or future. The obvious challenge is finding the leaders that can actually follow the guidelines set forth by Plato.
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Friday, October 15, 2010
Rawls, Theory of Justice. (Part II)
SCW#4- The utilitarian position emphasizes a form of justice in which the greatest good for the greatest number of people dictates social decisions. Since the nineteenth century, this view, sometimes called the principle of utility, has been fairly dominant in Western democracies. However, Rawls condemns this view because it does not improve the condition of the least advantaged members of society. In fact, it may even harm such people. What is your position on Rawls’s rejection of utility? How carefully must a society that values justice work to prevent enacting laws that might make worse the lives of the least advantaged?
Rawls and Just Society
Utilitarian theory states that morality is achieved through efforts that seek to promote the greatest amount of pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of people. This ethical theory remains prevalent in modern political philosophy as it aims to satisfy a society’s majority. Philosopher and ethical theorist John Rawls rejects utility theory on the grounds that loss of freedoms incurred by a society’s least advantaged, does not justify any greater good; in other words, the mere fact that only a minority of people may suffer does not warrant the result of true justice. Like Rawls, it is my contention that the sacrifice of a few is not a worthy victory in the battle for justice; in order to achieve true justice, a society or government must meticulously and diligently transcend the mentality that pleasing the majority is a goal sufficient enough to label that society as just.
Rawls’s rejection of utilitarian theory is based on the fact that the lives of the least advantaged members of a society do not improve; in order to understand the implications of Rawls’s standpoint, we need to first understand the principle of utility. The principle of utility or greatest happiness principle states that choosing an act or policy that produces the greater amount of happiness over the alternative, is the morally acceptable choice. “In deciding which action or policy is the most morally compelling, we need only measure the total amount of pleasure and the total amount of pain involved in the alternatives, and choose the alternative with the greatest net pleasure” (Boss, 23). Let’s look at the principle of utility in a practical setting. During the Second World War (WWII) there was a perception of threat of impending nuclear attack on America by Japan. In order to neutralize this threat, it was decided that the best way to eliminate said threat was to initiate the use of nuclear weaponry against Japan. It can be said that a utilitarian methodology was used to decide whether this was the best course of action. Had the American government not isolated this threat and had Japan attacked with nuclear weapons, the loss of many American lives would have been certain. In this case, in order to provide the greatest amount of happiness (minimal loss of American life) it was decided to attack the Japanese to eliminate the threat. Using this example, a strict utilitarian can successfully rationalize how the act of using nuclear weaponry was not only justified, it was in fact moral. This may be easy to accept for some, but for me (and perhaps Rawls) the fact that we may have limited the number of American deaths, does not seem worthy enough a reason to label that particular act as moral. What about the death and destruction caused to the Japanese people? Is the intrinsic value of American life worth more than the life of the Japanese? Do the ends justify the means? Although extreme, this is a perfect example of how utility theory can fall short in the quest for post-conventional moral wisdom. Let’s look at utility in a different situation. One of our country’s most shameful facts is that we utilized, legalized, and promoted slavery. One idea behind slavery was that the use of slaves by owners contributed to individuals by means of productivity as well as contributing to society by increasing commerce and trade. At the time, the use of slavery was seen as “good” because the overall outcome to society outweighed resulting injustices. Certainly nobody would want to excuse the act of slavery as being morally justified however, there was a time when this act was not deemed immoral. Nuclear warfare and slavery, as sensitive of subjects they may be, are both good examples of how this theory has the ability to justify horrific acts that can have potentially devastating outcomes.
In order to prevent injustices that become possible through typical utilitarian thought, a truly just government will seek not only to please the greatest amount of people, but will also aspire to ensure that justice is attainable by all members of its society. For Rawls, a just society begins with the notion that all its members are equal and “…no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like” (Rawls, 238). This original position or “initial status quo” is what allows those who decide the policies of the society to create “just” policies that are of equal fairness to everyone. It is at this starting point that fair and just policy making must begin in order to “ensure that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances” (Rawls, 238) . Rawls understands that self-preservation and self-interest are innate in humans; instead of insisting that we ought not to act on those instincts, Rawls asks us (or those making policy) to recognize those qualities and act in such a way that promotes the pursuance of those qualities by all peoples. This is a crucial element to Rawls’s theory, and one that seems could be commonsensically applied while formulating law and public policy. In other words, those charged with creating the laws of the land, should recognize that their own interests, while subjective, are no more or less important than the interests of others; therefore, since the pursuance of interests remains subjective in nature, the best law ought to be one that allows everyone the fair and equal ability to pursue their best interests. If a society truly values justice and equality, the need of this basic understanding is paramount to achieve the desired results. Without the basic understanding of this concept, those charged with creating the policy of a society will neglect to capture the basic needs (and/or rights) of all individuals.
Many opponents of utilitarian theory contest that “it is not so much wrong as it is incomplete” (Boss, 25). It is clear in Rawls’s work that he does not oppose the theory on the notion that it is wrong, but more so because it is simply not good enough. While utility may seek a quantitative (and sometimes qualitative) goal to justify the morality or “rightness” of an act, for many of us, a higher level of moral doctrine is needed. In short, the many social injustices that occur to the minority cannot be justified simply because the majority does not have to suffer. If any society is to be considered as just, that society should aim to provide equality for all its members.
Rawls and Just Society
Utilitarian theory states that morality is achieved through efforts that seek to promote the greatest amount of pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of people. This ethical theory remains prevalent in modern political philosophy as it aims to satisfy a society’s majority. Philosopher and ethical theorist John Rawls rejects utility theory on the grounds that loss of freedoms incurred by a society’s least advantaged, does not justify any greater good; in other words, the mere fact that only a minority of people may suffer does not warrant the result of true justice. Like Rawls, it is my contention that the sacrifice of a few is not a worthy victory in the battle for justice; in order to achieve true justice, a society or government must meticulously and diligently transcend the mentality that pleasing the majority is a goal sufficient enough to label that society as just.
Rawls’s rejection of utilitarian theory is based on the fact that the lives of the least advantaged members of a society do not improve; in order to understand the implications of Rawls’s standpoint, we need to first understand the principle of utility. The principle of utility or greatest happiness principle states that choosing an act or policy that produces the greater amount of happiness over the alternative, is the morally acceptable choice. “In deciding which action or policy is the most morally compelling, we need only measure the total amount of pleasure and the total amount of pain involved in the alternatives, and choose the alternative with the greatest net pleasure” (Boss, 23). Let’s look at the principle of utility in a practical setting. During the Second World War (WWII) there was a perception of threat of impending nuclear attack on America by Japan. In order to neutralize this threat, it was decided that the best way to eliminate said threat was to initiate the use of nuclear weaponry against Japan. It can be said that a utilitarian methodology was used to decide whether this was the best course of action. Had the American government not isolated this threat and had Japan attacked with nuclear weapons, the loss of many American lives would have been certain. In this case, in order to provide the greatest amount of happiness (minimal loss of American life) it was decided to attack the Japanese to eliminate the threat. Using this example, a strict utilitarian can successfully rationalize how the act of using nuclear weaponry was not only justified, it was in fact moral. This may be easy to accept for some, but for me (and perhaps Rawls) the fact that we may have limited the number of American deaths, does not seem worthy enough a reason to label that particular act as moral. What about the death and destruction caused to the Japanese people? Is the intrinsic value of American life worth more than the life of the Japanese? Do the ends justify the means? Although extreme, this is a perfect example of how utility theory can fall short in the quest for post-conventional moral wisdom. Let’s look at utility in a different situation. One of our country’s most shameful facts is that we utilized, legalized, and promoted slavery. One idea behind slavery was that the use of slaves by owners contributed to individuals by means of productivity as well as contributing to society by increasing commerce and trade. At the time, the use of slavery was seen as “good” because the overall outcome to society outweighed resulting injustices. Certainly nobody would want to excuse the act of slavery as being morally justified however, there was a time when this act was not deemed immoral. Nuclear warfare and slavery, as sensitive of subjects they may be, are both good examples of how this theory has the ability to justify horrific acts that can have potentially devastating outcomes.
In order to prevent injustices that become possible through typical utilitarian thought, a truly just government will seek not only to please the greatest amount of people, but will also aspire to ensure that justice is attainable by all members of its society. For Rawls, a just society begins with the notion that all its members are equal and “…no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like” (Rawls, 238). This original position or “initial status quo” is what allows those who decide the policies of the society to create “just” policies that are of equal fairness to everyone. It is at this starting point that fair and just policy making must begin in order to “ensure that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances” (Rawls, 238) . Rawls understands that self-preservation and self-interest are innate in humans; instead of insisting that we ought not to act on those instincts, Rawls asks us (or those making policy) to recognize those qualities and act in such a way that promotes the pursuance of those qualities by all peoples. This is a crucial element to Rawls’s theory, and one that seems could be commonsensically applied while formulating law and public policy. In other words, those charged with creating the laws of the land, should recognize that their own interests, while subjective, are no more or less important than the interests of others; therefore, since the pursuance of interests remains subjective in nature, the best law ought to be one that allows everyone the fair and equal ability to pursue their best interests. If a society truly values justice and equality, the need of this basic understanding is paramount to achieve the desired results. Without the basic understanding of this concept, those charged with creating the policy of a society will neglect to capture the basic needs (and/or rights) of all individuals.
Many opponents of utilitarian theory contest that “it is not so much wrong as it is incomplete” (Boss, 25). It is clear in Rawls’s work that he does not oppose the theory on the notion that it is wrong, but more so because it is simply not good enough. While utility may seek a quantitative (and sometimes qualitative) goal to justify the morality or “rightness” of an act, for many of us, a higher level of moral doctrine is needed. In short, the many social injustices that occur to the minority cannot be justified simply because the majority does not have to suffer. If any society is to be considered as just, that society should aim to provide equality for all its members.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
My email to Congresswoman Capps in regards to DADT being blocked by the Senate
Congresswoman Capps,
My name is Josh Davila, I am a Marine Corps Veteran residing in Santa Maria, California and I currently attend Allan Hancock College as a full-time student. Today, Senate republicans voted to block the repeal of the seventeen year old "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It is with clear mind and heavy heart that I reach out to you as my congressional representative in hopes that my frustration with this matter will not go unheard. As a former military member and combat veteran, I feel a great connection to fellow service-members- past, present, and future. Regardless of my religious or political beliefs, being afforded the opportunity to serve our great nation both in wartime and in peacetime was undoubtedly the single greatest opportunity I have had to date. Serving my country not only changed my life, it quite possibly saved it. Thirteen years ago when I was seventeen, if you had met me on my way to boot camp and asked me how I felt about this polarizing issue, I probably would have mustered up an uneducated, egoist response. To be frank, if it didn’t have anything to do directly with me, I probably could not have cared less. I am not the boy I once was; and sometimes I wish that a person of your position would ask me how I feel about this and many other pressing issues of today. It’s with great degrees of frustration and despondency that I think about how many men and women of this great country will not get to enjoy the same tremendous opportunities and benefits which were afforded to me. To think that some of our nation’s sons and daughters may be denied these opportunities based on their sexual orientation only solidifies my disdain for this debate.
Congresswoman Capps, it is with great certainty I claim that the current policy which dictates the acceptable sexual orientation of service members is unjust and immoral. Furthermore, the refusal by some government officials to consider the revision of this bill is in direct opposition of the forward-type thinking that I feel our nation needs to possess in order to progress successfully. As a country that prides itself on liberty and justice for all, negating the rights of select groups of individuals not only contradicts the ideology of our nation, it opens the door for future injustices and warrants implications of unknown degree. I have heard many arguments on both sides of this debate and I empathize with those who voice their concerns with strong personal conviction. For me, this debate is not about sexuality, it is not about homophobia, and it is not about the armed forces. Instead, this is clearly an issue of rights, equality, and justice. The fact that our elected Senate prefers to avoid seeking a “just” decision on this issue is disheartening to say the least. Through slavery and women’s suffrage, our history shows us how our perceptions and treatment of the “minority” have yet to be accurate. It is my great hope that collectively we can realize the truth that unfair treatment is simply not an ingredient in the recipe for a successful society. Mrs. Capps, I would like to ask what is your position on this issue? Furthermore I would like to know what it would take to get you, as the representative of California’s 23rd district, to advocate that this bill receive the fair and just consideration it deserves. I understand that change does not happen overnight, I can only hope that we can all agree that this issue deserves the attention of the highest degree. Please feel free to let me know how I can be of help as an advocate for this issue. Thank you for your time, and for your service to the people of your district.
Best Regards,
Josh Davila
United States Marine Corps 1998-2006
My name is Josh Davila, I am a Marine Corps Veteran residing in Santa Maria, California and I currently attend Allan Hancock College as a full-time student. Today, Senate republicans voted to block the repeal of the seventeen year old "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It is with clear mind and heavy heart that I reach out to you as my congressional representative in hopes that my frustration with this matter will not go unheard. As a former military member and combat veteran, I feel a great connection to fellow service-members- past, present, and future. Regardless of my religious or political beliefs, being afforded the opportunity to serve our great nation both in wartime and in peacetime was undoubtedly the single greatest opportunity I have had to date. Serving my country not only changed my life, it quite possibly saved it. Thirteen years ago when I was seventeen, if you had met me on my way to boot camp and asked me how I felt about this polarizing issue, I probably would have mustered up an uneducated, egoist response. To be frank, if it didn’t have anything to do directly with me, I probably could not have cared less. I am not the boy I once was; and sometimes I wish that a person of your position would ask me how I feel about this and many other pressing issues of today. It’s with great degrees of frustration and despondency that I think about how many men and women of this great country will not get to enjoy the same tremendous opportunities and benefits which were afforded to me. To think that some of our nation’s sons and daughters may be denied these opportunities based on their sexual orientation only solidifies my disdain for this debate.
Congresswoman Capps, it is with great certainty I claim that the current policy which dictates the acceptable sexual orientation of service members is unjust and immoral. Furthermore, the refusal by some government officials to consider the revision of this bill is in direct opposition of the forward-type thinking that I feel our nation needs to possess in order to progress successfully. As a country that prides itself on liberty and justice for all, negating the rights of select groups of individuals not only contradicts the ideology of our nation, it opens the door for future injustices and warrants implications of unknown degree. I have heard many arguments on both sides of this debate and I empathize with those who voice their concerns with strong personal conviction. For me, this debate is not about sexuality, it is not about homophobia, and it is not about the armed forces. Instead, this is clearly an issue of rights, equality, and justice. The fact that our elected Senate prefers to avoid seeking a “just” decision on this issue is disheartening to say the least. Through slavery and women’s suffrage, our history shows us how our perceptions and treatment of the “minority” have yet to be accurate. It is my great hope that collectively we can realize the truth that unfair treatment is simply not an ingredient in the recipe for a successful society. Mrs. Capps, I would like to ask what is your position on this issue? Furthermore I would like to know what it would take to get you, as the representative of California’s 23rd district, to advocate that this bill receive the fair and just consideration it deserves. I understand that change does not happen overnight, I can only hope that we can all agree that this issue deserves the attention of the highest degree. Please feel free to let me know how I can be of help as an advocate for this issue. Thank you for your time, and for your service to the people of your district.
Best Regards,
Josh Davila
United States Marine Corps 1998-2006
Rawls: Theory of Justice
“This element of justice is absent in strict utilitarian theory.” This stance by Rawls (as stated by Boss) is the reason I feel that Justice Theory is more humane than strict utilitarian theory. While utility seeks the most overall good, Rawls seems opposed to reaching that good at the potential sacrifice of certain individuals or groups.
I believe that Rawls theory is somewhat similar to rule utility in that it focuses less on individual acts (token) themselves, and instead focuses on rules or guiding principles (type) that will promote fairness and equality for all. I feel that the underlying principle to Rawls’s theory is that if we have to make sacrifices that disadvantage some in order to benefit others, there is something fundamentally wrong and we should focus on seeking change that promotes equality for all involved. Rawls prefaces his introduction to the “veil of ignorance” by talking about the needs of rational persons to pursue their own self-interests. He claims “They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept…This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall call justice as fairness.” I think what Rawls is saying here is that, if I as a rational person am aware of what I need in order to pursue my own interests, then I as a rational person should understand that everyone else has the same basic needs and should be equally considered. This type of thought process I feel is similar to Kant’s first formulation of his categorical imperative in that it forces the agent to not think egocentrically, but rather to consider the roles and/or rights of others when weighing moral decisions. To me, these types of theories are morally stronger because their foundation begins at a post-conventional level. Rawls continues on to the “veil of ignorance” idea in which he basically says we need to imagine ourselves with somewhat of a blank slate, where we have no material possessions, net worth, or designated social status; doing this will give us an unbiased approach to formulating rules and doctrine that will allow for equality for all people-not just the benefit of ourselves. This is somewhat similar to sociologist’s idea of “beginners mind” which says that in order for us to truly examine others and see things from their point of view, we need to rid ourselves of all facts and experience so that we can consider something new. Like Kant’s categorical imperative, Rawls has set forth two rules (principles) that when considered properly do a great job of weeding out a significant amount of amoral actions. I especially like the fact that Rawls second principle basically states that social and economic injustices will in fact happen, but when they do happen they should provide an equal advantage to all persons. This type of thinking not only recognizes the reality of social and political injustices we currently have, it also acts as a voice for the disadvantaged.
I feel as if I need more information regarding the actual use of this theory so that I can properly analyze the pros and cons. On the surface it seems very socially and politically acceptable. One concern I have is that because this theory is rule based, I do not feel (based on the information I have) that it provides us with enough guidance for analyzing specific moral dilemmas. As a test example, I tried to use the ongoing debate of abortion while incorporating the logic of Rawls’s theory of justice and found myself getting nowhere in terms of progress; perhaps abortion was too confusing a topic but I’ll use it as an example of my concerns with practicality. I believe that the two justice principles can give a good starting point for analyzing a moral dilemma but do not go into enough detail to account for many of the situations or dilemmas we currently face, ( I actually feel Kant’s categorical imperative does a better job at encompassing a the multitude of moral dilemmas).
Another question I cannot accurately conclude is in regards to the principle of non-contradiction. Based on my reading, I do not feel that Rawls in any way suggests that rules cannot change over time. In fact, I feel that Rawls may actually advocate the changing of rules if they had in fact been practiced wholeheartedly and were found to not be to the equal advantage of all people. Because societies do in fact change, as well as the needs of individuals and groups within a society, I think it is a fair assumption that what “works” now, may not necessarily suffice in the future. If we can change rules over time does this imply a contradiction that negates universality?
I believe that Rawls theory is somewhat similar to rule utility in that it focuses less on individual acts (token) themselves, and instead focuses on rules or guiding principles (type) that will promote fairness and equality for all. I feel that the underlying principle to Rawls’s theory is that if we have to make sacrifices that disadvantage some in order to benefit others, there is something fundamentally wrong and we should focus on seeking change that promotes equality for all involved. Rawls prefaces his introduction to the “veil of ignorance” by talking about the needs of rational persons to pursue their own self-interests. He claims “They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept…This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall call justice as fairness.” I think what Rawls is saying here is that, if I as a rational person am aware of what I need in order to pursue my own interests, then I as a rational person should understand that everyone else has the same basic needs and should be equally considered. This type of thought process I feel is similar to Kant’s first formulation of his categorical imperative in that it forces the agent to not think egocentrically, but rather to consider the roles and/or rights of others when weighing moral decisions. To me, these types of theories are morally stronger because their foundation begins at a post-conventional level. Rawls continues on to the “veil of ignorance” idea in which he basically says we need to imagine ourselves with somewhat of a blank slate, where we have no material possessions, net worth, or designated social status; doing this will give us an unbiased approach to formulating rules and doctrine that will allow for equality for all people-not just the benefit of ourselves. This is somewhat similar to sociologist’s idea of “beginners mind” which says that in order for us to truly examine others and see things from their point of view, we need to rid ourselves of all facts and experience so that we can consider something new. Like Kant’s categorical imperative, Rawls has set forth two rules (principles) that when considered properly do a great job of weeding out a significant amount of amoral actions. I especially like the fact that Rawls second principle basically states that social and economic injustices will in fact happen, but when they do happen they should provide an equal advantage to all persons. This type of thinking not only recognizes the reality of social and political injustices we currently have, it also acts as a voice for the disadvantaged.
I feel as if I need more information regarding the actual use of this theory so that I can properly analyze the pros and cons. On the surface it seems very socially and politically acceptable. One concern I have is that because this theory is rule based, I do not feel (based on the information I have) that it provides us with enough guidance for analyzing specific moral dilemmas. As a test example, I tried to use the ongoing debate of abortion while incorporating the logic of Rawls’s theory of justice and found myself getting nowhere in terms of progress; perhaps abortion was too confusing a topic but I’ll use it as an example of my concerns with practicality. I believe that the two justice principles can give a good starting point for analyzing a moral dilemma but do not go into enough detail to account for many of the situations or dilemmas we currently face, ( I actually feel Kant’s categorical imperative does a better job at encompassing a the multitude of moral dilemmas).
Another question I cannot accurately conclude is in regards to the principle of non-contradiction. Based on my reading, I do not feel that Rawls in any way suggests that rules cannot change over time. In fact, I feel that Rawls may actually advocate the changing of rules if they had in fact been practiced wholeheartedly and were found to not be to the equal advantage of all people. Because societies do in fact change, as well as the needs of individuals and groups within a society, I think it is a fair assumption that what “works” now, may not necessarily suffice in the future. If we can change rules over time does this imply a contradiction that negates universality?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)