tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post3908920065089244784..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: On ethics, part V: ContractarianismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47727658988697552742011-09-10T18:23:49.883-04:002011-09-10T18:23:49.883-04:00Massimo
The simplest way to express how Rawls prop...Massimo<br />The simplest way to express how Rawls proposal is fatally flawed is the following:<br />If the man in the original position is not allowed to know anything...not about himself, his temperament, his moral preferences, his desires and aspirations,about others aspirations and preferences, about human nature, etc. then there is no grounds to even begin to think about what is rational or not rational.There are no objectives to think rationally about or any way to rationally create objectives.<br />If on the other hand, he is allowed to know everything there is to know....except his position or condition or place in the society behind the veil, everyone will decide differentl about what is rational or not....based upon what type of life they want to live....a hermit with books who cares not about material goods, a person that wants to escape the social interactions that cause one to feel the need to seek status, impress others, struggle to attain more material goods than others or have more power than others or better reputation than others,Etc. He may not be concerned about security....in fact he may detest the very thought of people allowing their lives to be controlled by the need for security, wealth, admiration, etc. <br />And, if someone made the argument that he is supposed to choose based upon what he thinks some average person would desire, who could possibly do that. And he cannot simply reason in a vacuum....a rational person can only make rational choices about the means....not the ends.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58888033607298388102011-09-10T01:14:10.691-04:002011-09-10T01:14:10.691-04:00Massimo
I think you will enjoy this web page. Or, ...Massimo<br />I think you will enjoy this web page. Or, maybe not. It details main criticisms made by noted philosophers over the years.<br />http://ivr-enc.info/index.php?title=H._John_Rawls:_Some_Main_Lines_of_Criticism&printable=yes<br />My particular criticism is best expressed by Michael Sandel: <br />"It is descriptively inaccurate and normatively unattractive because people neither are nor should aspire to be deracinated agents capable of choosing any and all of their commitments as if from some unsituated point of view of pure practical reason. What troubles Sandel is Rawls’s identification of moral personhood with the two basic moral powers or capacities, rather than with some determinate set of ends. On Sandel’s view, Rawls conceives of persons as little more than a metaphysical capacity to choose, all form and no substance."DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79582841567081709162011-09-09T18:09:02.108-04:002011-09-09T18:09:02.108-04:00mufi,
"Whatever normative category the veil ...mufi,<br /><br />"Whatever normative category the veil of ignorance best fits with, (like the Golden Rule) it hits me at a guttural level."<br /><br />What's wrong with the golden rule? If I understand well (that you meant that there were something wrong).Oscarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04360507492938258763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68006526563432128222011-09-08T15:45:29.106-04:002011-09-08T15:45:29.106-04:00Massimo
There is no "rational" starting ...Massimo<br />There is no "rational" starting point. 'Rational'<br />implies "a rational approach to achieving ones objective". Who is going to define that objective?<br />Is going to be some nebulous objective like "human flourishing" or something more specific like "having a higher status than most"?Or, perhaps you will assume that everyone already agrees on what is "fair" and "just". To choose rationally, there must be a premise or an objective.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38381711248688080442011-09-08T08:33:48.157-04:002011-09-08T08:33:48.157-04:00DJD,
well, at this point I actually have to concl...DJD,<br /><br />well, at this point I actually have to conclude that you simply don't get it. To say that "Some may 'feel' that they can win under any type of system, no matter what their initial condition or position" you are talking about irrational behavior. The whole premise here is that *rational* people will agree to Rawls' suggestions. There is no accounting for irrationality, once you go in that direction *no* system will make sense.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76982218468163385672011-09-07T15:18:01.379-04:002011-09-07T15:18:01.379-04:00Massimo
You have explained it very well. And I und...Massimo<br />You have explained it very well. And I understand what you are asserting, very well. It is simply the case that you are wrong. Or, at least I am convinced you are wrong. You assume that everyone would see their self interest as being identical.<br />Any "real" person may see their self interest differently than another "real" person. Some may "feel" that they can win under any type of system, no matter what their initial condition or position. Others may have a low self confidence and may have a low fear threshold and have experienced the pain of low self-esteem caused by loss of status, or very low status. Also... the "real" person's moral identity may be such that the whole idea of a system that the whole enterprise of seeking equality is corrupting to the soul. Many Rawls critics have written along this line, as well as other arguments. You insist on simply responding to my arguments as the result of my just not "getting it"....or that I have simply not understood what you or Rawls have said. Please try harder to understand my argument....and respond to my argument with the knowledge that I am very aware that the veil will keep the individual from having a clue about what condition or position<br />they may inherit in any possible system.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78481468401246964232011-09-07T08:02:31.471-04:002011-09-07T08:02:31.471-04:00DJD,
I'm honestly not sure why I'm having...DJD,<br /><br />I'm honestly not sure why I'm having such a hard time explaining this concept here. Of course we have preferences, values, etc. But the idea is that *rational self-interest* would make you choose a society structured in as fair way as possible (i.e., where no group has inherent advantages) precisely because you don't know (from behind the veil) whether your preferences, values, etc. will be in the minority or not. I really can't explain it better than this.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60327763557269031862011-09-06T18:36:12.973-04:002011-09-06T18:36:12.973-04:00Massimo
"Rational choice" cannot be made...Massimo<br />"Rational choice" cannot be made unless it starts with preferences, values, desires, etc. It is not possible. There must be an objective. Is the person behind the veil supposed to have knowledge of some universal set of preferences, values, and desires? Also, how about knowledge of what is workable vs. non-workable?DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63009440142137604882011-09-06T15:34:12.955-04:002011-09-06T15:34:12.955-04:00Because a choice dictated by temperament would be ...Because a choice dictated by temperament would be irrational. Remember, this is about rational choice, not picking your flavor of the month.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51352676439630893622011-09-06T15:24:42.143-04:002011-09-06T15:24:42.143-04:00Massimo
If what you say is correct....then the rea...Massimo<br />If what you say is correct....then the real person, with real temperaments, moral identities,<br />and different views about how to live the "good" life, will make different choices than some other real person....even if they have no clue about their future standing in a future society. Why would you not agree with that?DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32933703963537378202011-09-06T07:23:23.161-04:002011-09-06T07:23:23.161-04:00Yes, we have been here before, and you insist in m...Yes, we have been here before, and you insist in missing the point: personalities are allowed; knowledge of one's lot is not. Really, the distinction should be clear.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3796151434202679322011-09-05T20:09:38.042-04:002011-09-05T20:09:38.042-04:00Massimo
We've been here. You said that indeed ...Massimo<br />We've been here. You said that indeed they would be sentient, feel emotions, have a particular temperament. That may or may not be accurate.....I have read that it is not allowed under Rawl's criteria. If it is not, then we end up with a non-person, with no awareness of their own identity, desire preferences, no moral ideas whatsoever,etc.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2332462381847087672011-09-05T17:39:00.089-04:002011-09-05T17:39:00.089-04:00DJD,
I don't know which "others" yo...DJD,<br /><br />I don't know which "others" you are referring to, but nobody who has actually read Rawls would say that he " seeks to have others focus on in determining "fairness" primarily in terms of distribution of material goods or other types of status distribution."<br /><br />As for people's moral identities, etc., that - again - is not the point. The point is that people will not know whether they will be in a position of advantage or not. For instance, a Christian will know he is a Christian, but will not know whether the society in which he'll find himself will be majority Christian (favorable) or not (unfavorable). If he acts rationally therefore, he will want a society where no religion can impose itself upon the others.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81017348265434033482011-09-04T16:11:54.797-04:002011-09-04T16:11:54.797-04:00Massimo
What would be your response to the followi...Massimo<br />What would be your response to the following....which is similar to others that have criticized Rawls?<br /> Rawls limits what he seeks to have others focus on in determining "fairness" primarily in terms of distribution of material goods or other types of status distribution. He also assumes that the "veil" will conceal the person's knowledge of their potential position in the status ladder, primarily income. Many individuals make choices based upon their moral identity, their knowledge of economics, their religion, their understanding of political philosophy, history of types of political/economic systems that failed, etc....so the veil would not matter. That he thought it would matter shows his limited concept about how individuals choose the kind of political/economical system they would choose to live in, or that they thought would be the best system for most people to live in. <br />He apparently had internalized the ideology of egalitarianism and now thought it was THE MOST important ideal.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6172089824049261122011-09-03T20:20:46.706-04:002011-09-03T20:20:46.706-04:00Massimo
It seems as though Rawls was weened on Mar...Massimo<br />It seems as though Rawls was weened on Marx. He limits what he seeks to have others focus on in determining "fairness" primarily in terms of distribution of material goods or other types of status distribution. He goes another step in the Marxian tradition by assuming that the "veil" will conceal the person's knowledge of their potential position in the status ladder, primarily income. Marx thought that individuals and groups always made political choices and embraced ideologies based upon their position in society.But this is not the case. Many make choices based upon their moral identity, their knowledge of economics, their religion, their understanding of political philosophy, history of types of political/economic systems that failed, etc....so the veil would not matter. That he thought it would matter shows his limited concept about how individuals choose the kind of political? economical system they would choose to live in, or that they thought would be the best system for most people to live in. <br />He apparently had internalized the ideology of egalitarianism and now thought is was THE MOST important ideal.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30968370225632002332011-09-03T16:06:09.982-04:002011-09-03T16:06:09.982-04:00Massimo
Leaving aside any questions about the temp...Massimo<br />Leaving aside any questions about the temperament or differences in moral identity of the person behind the veil....What will they be allowed to know? Economics, history, psychology,etc.?DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-403666534520473752011-09-02T11:51:39.603-04:002011-09-02T11:51:39.603-04:00Mufi..
Well stated.Mufi..<br />Well stated.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7816497824940762002011-09-02T11:17:23.927-04:002011-09-02T11:17:23.927-04:00DJD: A related thought occurred to me shortly afte...DJD: A related thought occurred to me shortly after I posted my last comment - namely, that both my and de Waal's description of those emotional and behavioral traits as "moral" presupposes a conception of morality that may not be universally shared. That said, I suppose that a less philosophically loaded description of them would simply be "pro-social."<br /><br />Still, in today's culture (viz. in the developed "West"), I think many (if not most) folks would agree that such traits are "good" (as in: desirable and praiseworthy). But I would agree with you insofar as that position may or may not hold up under rational analysis. (Indeed, as I near the end of Taylor's Intro to Virtue Ethics, I doubt whether the ancient Greek thinkers would have regarded those traits as particularly "moral.")mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81228562947104632452011-09-01T21:09:20.719-04:002011-09-01T21:09:20.719-04:00Mufi
Sympathy and empathy are emotions. Having emp...Mufi<br />Sympathy and empathy are emotions. Having empathy....caring about others is natural. Caring is a far cry from "you ought" to care for others. We simply do care. It's our natural make-up. <br />The same with all of our evolved traits. Morality develops when we decide which traits we "ought" to<br />encourage and praise....and which evolved traits we decide to discourage and condemn. That we naturally 'care' is no rational ground for saying that we "ought" to care....any more than that we naturally strike out in anger or some kids are naturally bullies, is no ground for rationally concluding that we "ought" to be bullies or strike out in anger. thou "ought" or "ought not" is the stuff of morality. And we "use" moral argumentation in order to get our way...justify our actions, criticize others, to create rationales for trying to "force" legislation that we favor, etc. But, the bottom line is that morality is the tool that social groups use to encourage some behaviors and discourage others. And what the want to encourage/discourage is the source of our brand of morality. Nietzsche had it right in saying "Ask the value of values. Ask the value of each moral belief held and supported by social groups".DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30224204755710988702011-09-01T12:30:53.353-04:002011-09-01T12:30:53.353-04:00DJD: Did you mean actual Moral instincts",
or...DJD: <i>Did you mean actual Moral instincts",<br />or were you referring to our evolved traits that play a role in or allow for the development of morality?</i><br /><br />When I think of "moral instincts", I think of certain evolved traits, like those primatologist Frans de Waal speaks of in regard to nonhuman species: "sympathy, empathy, reciprocity, a willingness to follow social rules." (<a href="http://partners.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20010114mag-atheism.html" rel="nofollow">source</a>)<br /><br />But then I also think of those evolved traits as "actual moral instincts" (cultural variability notwithstanding), so I'm not sure that I've chosen one option over the other.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14433523326441536182011-09-01T12:10:49.033-04:002011-09-01T12:10:49.033-04:00Massimo
> "there is no contradiction betwe...Massimo<br />> "there is no contradiction between having a temperament etc and being put in a (hypothetical) position where you do not know whether you will be handsome or ugly (biological), or rich or poor (social)."<br />I believe there would be a problem, as temperament and many other traits play a role in making choices. And the person behind the veil will be making choices about the kind of world HE would like to live in, not what kind of world some NOBODY would like to live in.There is no neutral chooser.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21060593035840638082011-09-01T12:01:21.476-04:002011-09-01T12:01:21.476-04:00Mufi
Good comments. I'm not clear on one of yo...Mufi<br />Good comments. I'm not clear on one of your statements. When you said: "which also tell us something about our moral instincts and intuitions." Did you mean actual Moral instincts",<br />or were you referring to our evolved traits that play a role in or allow for the development of morality?DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32597606006080581652011-09-01T11:35:32.667-04:002011-09-01T11:35:32.667-04:00PS: Of course, there are behavioral experiments (e...PS: Of course, there are behavioral experiments (e.g. using different variants of the ultimatum game), which also tell us something about our moral instincts and intuitions. But I suppose that, if one insists that only behaviors in the field are "real-world" enough to be meaningful, then one could look for pertinent field research (e.g. in anthropology and/or sociology to observe how various societies conceive justice and how they enforce it in custom and law). That's certainly a valid approach, although I believe that lab research is valid, too.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35618219788702739862011-09-01T10:19:25.946-04:002011-09-01T10:19:25.946-04:00DJD: I agree with you only insofar as the American...DJD: I agree with you only insofar as the American subjects of the Norton & Ariely study would not likely agree to just any policy prescription aimed at reducing economic inequality. For that matter, neither would I, although the reason that I mentioned those other "developed nations" is because they are: (a) actual (as opposed to ideal) examples of relatively egalitarian countries (again, relative to the USA); and (b) they are "developed", not only in typical economic terms (e.g. per capita GDP), but also in terms of various other measures of social well-being (e.g. infant mortality, literacy, crime, etc.), where they often out-score the USA.<br /><br />As for your general comment about moral psychology, I would be very surprised if such thought experiments were not at all predictive of actual behavior, but that too is an empirical question, which seems considerably more difficult to test for (e.g. given the dearth of actual trolley-like situations).mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58554130715621336852011-09-01T09:02:27.041-04:002011-09-01T09:02:27.041-04:00DJD,
there is no contradiction between having a t...DJD,<br /><br />there is no contradiction between having a temperament etc and being put in a (hypothetical) position where you do not know whether you will be handsome or ugly (biological), or rich or poor (social).<br /><br />I read all your comments about Wittgenstein, and I pointed out that I disagree with what you clearly stated in the very first comment. After that you kept changing subject when you referred to W., but I kept referring to your original comment.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.com