Posted on 08/14/2012 9:47:44 AM PDT by pingman
More than 40 years ago the philosopher John Rawls, in his influential political work “A Theory of Justice,” implored the people of the world to shed themselves of their selfish predispositions and to assume, for the sake of argument, that they were ignorant. He imposed this unwelcome constraint not so that his readers — mostly intellectuals, but also students, politicians and policy makers — would find themselves in a position of moribund stupidity but rather so they could get a grip on fairness. Rawls saw clearly that principles of justice like the golden rule or mutual benevolence, are subject to distortion. Rawls charged his readers to design a society from the ground up, from an original position, and he imposed the ignorance constraint so that readers would abandon any foreknowledge of their particular social status — their wealth, their health, their natural talents, their opportunities or any other goodies that the cosmos may have thrown their way. In doing so, he hoped to identify principles of justice that would best help individuals maximize their potential, fulfill their objectives (whatever they may happen to be) and live a good life. He called this presumption the “veil of ignorance.”
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Darn, fooled again.
I’ve gotta look for the “NYT” reference. Reading and believing anything from these soon to be unemployed losers is akin to believing an article on science by Algore.
The article is an examination of inequality from the progressive perspective. Of course it presumes too much and defines terms and ideas in ways that are simply untrue, even bizarre in their reinterpretation.
I will not take my moral or ethical guides for "fairness" from a liberal of any stripe.
As I read it, the philosopher, Rawls, theorizes that if we could just deny human nature, we could make better choices in society that would benefit everyone, both under and overachievers alike. My initial reaction was: “Patooie!!”
These are the same fools that say: Everyhuman is by default good by example of the “Noble Savage”.... So what is it? They try to have it BOTH ways by both saying if we deny human nature we can all be good while putting the “noble savage” which is the epitome of “human nature” up on a pedistal....
The whole belief system in this is schizophrenic...
[ The entire premise of the article is based on the preposterous liberal assumption that all people are equal or must be made to be so. ]
I thought they value everyone’s differences? So again they try to have it both ways and end up living in a schitzophrenic wonderland of the “nobel savage” and the “state created ubermench”.
Liberals exist in a theoretical world. It gives them the warm ‘n fuzzies to “imagine there’s no heaven...”.
Liberals exist in a theoretical world. It gives them the warm ‘n fuzzies to “imagine there’s no heaven...”.
Liberals want to create a “heaven on earth” and if you give them enough power they swear they can do so...
I know better, I know we practically live in a hell governed by natural law, the cold hard facts of real science and cold entropy embracing grip of thermodynamics, therefor heaven must exist and it is most definitely somewhere else. If you try making earth into a “heaven” you become nothing more than another proof in the final verdict that natural law trumps everything else, because for there to be energy there must also be entropy. When you take liberty even for the best of “reasons” it becomes tyranny. When you take one away the other always grows.
The Gods of the Copybook Headings are always right.
Excellent observation and point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.