Template:Rawls

Choose from the Philosophy Menu Bar ▼ HOME INDEX Justice 6.v.25 The Good Life 20.v.25 Hume & Testimony 3.vi.25 1H25 Reflections 17.vi.25 Nietzsche 1 24.ii.25 Nietzsche 2 11.iii.25 Universal Basic Income 25.iii.25 Hegel 22.iv.25 2024 Wrap-Up 10.x.24 Democracy 14.i.25 Civilisation? 28.i.25 Compulsory Voting? 11.ii.25 Berlin and Freedom 15.x.24 Nussbaum, Sen and Capability 29.x.24 Slavery Reparations 12.xi.24 Rawls 26.xi.24 Assisted Suicide 11.vi.24 Popper and Evolution 20.viii.24 Popper continued 17.ix.24 Berlin and Romanticism 1.x.24 Marx 19.iii.24 Kant and Knowledge 16.iv.24 Kant and Morality 30.iv.24 Education and Religion 14.v.24 Hobbes & Security 23.i.24 From Locke to Mill 6.ii.24 Rousseau: Social Contract 20.ii.24 Rousseau and Education 5.iii.24 AI and Ethics 31.x.23 Aristotle and AI 14.xi.23 Autumn 2023 Review 28.xi.23 Democracy 9.i.24 Private Education 5.ix.23 The Very Elderly 19.ix.23 Justifiable Law-breaking 3.x.23 Moral Authority 17.x.23 The Wells School of Philosophy Roll Call 26th November 2024, Hare Lane, 1000-1200 hrs: Tutors: Linda (L), Steve (S) Pupils: Madge (M), John (J), Patricia (P), Alexis (A), Margie (M), Viki (V), Howard (H), Colin (C), Ray (R), Scribe: Gavin (G) Apologies: David (D) The homework set Our next meeting on November 26th will be on John Rawls and his Theory of Justice. There are a number of entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy about Rawls; the most relevant for our discussion is the one on 'The Original Position' at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/ Wikipedia gives interesting autobiographical information about Rawls. His early life and army experiences clearly informed his views on justice. Rawls put forward the idea that to make decisions about people’s lives, it matters that the decision-makers think themselves into a position of total objectivity, as if they have no idea of their own position and are ignorant of everything about them, their gender, social status, race, everything, and can then dispassionately take a view. Impossible, but an example of the 'working towards' approach often used by philosophers, such as Plato’s working towards the understanding of The Good. Rawls's work on justice was taken up globally in many contexts; students involved in the Tiananmen Square protests were apparently waving copies of Rawls's book, A Theory of Justice. I've just listened to the Dworkin interview with Bryan Magee at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gySLm3Z1OvA and would highly recommend the first 20 minutes, which give a very clear overview of Rawls's views and the 'original position'. A relevant interview The philosopher Daniel Chandler recently gave a lecture to a meeting of Humanists UK on the work of John Rawls and and how this can contribute to the development of a fair and just society, and meet the challenges to contemporary liberal thinking. Here's a transcript of an interview he gave which succinctly captures what Rawls was up to: In your Voltaire Lecture, you’ll be exploring some of the ideas of the humanist philosopher John Rawls. Could you share why you believe his ideas are particularly relevant today? Rawls is the towering figure of twentieth century political philosophy – he’s frequently compared to the likes of John Stuart Mill, Hobbes, even Plato. What I love about his ideas, and why I think we need them right now, is that they are fundamentally hopeful and constructive. In contrast to our current political debate, which is often narrow and technocratic, Rawls set out a vision of the best that a democratic society can be – what he called a ‘realistic utopia’. It’s a vision of society grounded not in self-interest and competition but in reciprocity and cooperation, and I think it represents an unparalleled resource for developing the kind of big picture vision that has been missing from progressive politics in recent decades, and which we urgently need if we are to overcome the threat of authoritarian populism. What is the veil of ignorance and why is it important? One of Rawls’s most famous ideas is that if we want to know what a fair society would look like, we should imagine how we would choose to organise it if we didn’t know what our position within that society would be – whether we could be rich or poor, black or white, Christian or Muslim and so on – as if behind what he called a ‘veil of ignorance’. It’s a very intuitive way to think about fairness, similar to the idea that someone might cut a cake more fairly if they didn’t know which piece they would end up getting. And while it can sound a bit abstract and unfamiliar, especially when presented in the jargon of academic philosophy, it clearly echoes the ‘golden rule’ – ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ – some version of which is found in many, if not most, major religious and cultural traditions. Rawls uses this thought experiment to justify two fundamental principles of justice, principles, to do with freedom and equality respectively – hence the title of my recent book, Free and Equal. First, he argues that we would want to guarantee a set of truly fundamental freedoms, including personal freedoms like freedom of speech, religion, sexuality and so on, and political freedoms, like the right to vote and freedom of assembly. The idea here is that if we didn’t know our race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and so on, we would want to make sure that we could live freely according to our own beliefs, and participate in politics as equals. That’s the essence of Rawls’s first ‘basic liberties’ principle, which supports a widely shared ideal of liberal democracy, albeit one that needs defending today. Rawls’s second ‘equality’ principle actually has two parts, combining ‘fair equality of opportunity’ – everyone should have an equal chance to develop their talents and abilities; with the ‘difference principle’ – the idea that inequalities are only justified if they ultimately benefit everyone, and especially the least well off. In fact, Rawls argues that we should try to organise our economy so that the least well off are better off than they would be under any alternative system. While equality of opportunity is a familiar idea, the difference principle is a strikingly original and strongly egalitarian way of thinking about social justice. It recognises the role of incentives in creating a dynamic market economy, but calls on us to make sure that everyone shares in the benefits, right down to the least well off. Is the veil of ignorance more than just a thought experiment? Can it be a call to action? Absolutely! It is hard to imagine anyone taking Rawls’s thought experiment seriously and concluding that we should be satisfied with the status quo. Rawls’s two principles give us both an inspiring vision of what a truly just society would look like, and a benchmark for seeing where our existing institutions fall short. Unfortunately Rawls didn’t say very much about how we could put his principles into practice, and as both an economist as well as a philosopher, I’ve tried to pick up where he left off and spell out a bold but achievable practical agenda to transcend the culture wars, reinvigorate democracy and transform capitalism as we know it. Your book Free and Equal touches upon the concept of a universal basic income. Tell us more! Making sure that every citizen has food to eat, clothes to wear, a place to live – in other words, that they can meet their ‘basic needs’ – is perhaps the most fundamental requirement of a just society. We can do that through targeted, means-tested benefits, and that is probably the cheapest approach. But money isn’t the only thing that matters. Our current system generates stigma, and rests on intrusive and humiliating eligibility assessments, often causing serious harm to people’s mental health. A basic income would eliminate this stigma, because it would be received by everyone; it would make sure that even the least well off have a sense of agency and independence; and it would make it easier for people on low incomes to enter paid work, with all the benefits that can have for giving people a sense of purpose and individual meaning. Although a basic income has an important role to play in providing a floor in terms of material resources, I think we need to be moving away from an economic paradigm that relies too heavily on redistribution. Our aim should be to tackle inequality at its source, or what is sometimes called ‘predistribution’, and Rawls was an early advocate for this kind of approach. That means focusing ‘good jobs’ – through minimum wages, stronger unions and investing in education, especially for the more than half of the population who don’t go to university; it means bringing about a more equal distribution of wealth, say via a universal minimum inheritance paid to every citizens at the age of 18; and putting real power in the hands of workers, through something like the German system of co-management, where have a third to a half of the seats on company boards. You’ve been a vocal advocate for electoral reform in the UK. What are the most pressing issues with the current system, and what changes would you like to see implemented? The basic problem with our ‘first past the post’ (FPTP) electoral system, is that some votes count more than others. We saw that more clearly than ever in the recent election, where it took an average of 23,500 votes for Labour to win a seat compared to more than 820,000 per Reform MP. Whatever you think of Reform, that’s not a sensible way for a democracy to function. A more proportional system would mean that votes are translated directly into seats, which in turn would encourage a multi-party democracy that is more likely to represent the diversity of views that exist in our society. And in contrast to FPTP where attention is skewed towards voters in marginal constituencies, proportional representation would incentivise politicians to appeal to voters rights across the country. How do you see the relationship between economic inequality and political power? And what steps can be taken to address this imbalance? Both economic inequality and imbalances of political power matter in their own right, and in practice they tend to reinforce one another. The essence of democracy, and a core part of Rawls’s first principle, is a commitment to political equality – not just the formal equality of everyone having the right to vote, but the substantive equality of a political system that gives everyone an equal chance to take part in and influence collective decision making. Sadly, we’re a long way away from that reality. You can see that most clearly in the influence that rich donors have over political parties. We don’t yet have data for the 2024 election, but in 2019 almost half of all donations to political parties came from 104 individual ‘super-donors’, giving an average of nearly half a million pounds each. The best way to fix this would be to introduce a ‘democracy voucher’ system, similar to that which exists in Seattle for municipal elections, where private donations are capped at a low level, and instead every citizen gets a voucher worth up to $100 that they can give to the candidate of their choice. It’s not a panacea – we also need to make sure that MPs better reflect the life experiences of the whole population, and to tackle the concentration of ownership in the news media – but it would be a good start! The Questions Here are some questions you might care to chew over: Overall, how significant do you feel Rawls's contribution to political philosophy has been, and may continue to be? In what ways? What could be his relevance in today's confrontational world? What practical action could follow from his philosophical approach? Was Rawls more a polymath than philosopher? Implications of this for philosophy, politics? Is his basic message only relevant to rational people of goodwill? How might popularist/libertarian politicians react to his notion of 'justice as fairness'? Is it possible to unite people, as citizens, to be able to work together (for the common good)? Or are we doomed, irredeemably, always to remain (bitterly) divided, based on polarised views of what is the nature of the human condition? How hopeful/pessimistic do you feel and why? With which philosophers, who have subscribed in different ways to the notion of a 'social contract, can Rawls be considered to have similar, or complementary, views? eg Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, John Stuart Mill, Popper, Berlin.. How well does Rawlsian theory fit with Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Plenary Session Introduction(S) Rawls was influenced by his experience of the Cold War. He saw justice as fairness. He was a highly influential philosopher. His social contract was very social: we have responsibilities to each other as citizens, he believed. In that he was similar to Kant and Rousseau. His was a social liberalism, rather than free-markets-at-any-cost libertarianism. He saw no conflict between equality and freedom. He believed society should be organised according to two principles: Equality of opportunity, and The difference principle. His message was a call to action: let’s make society equal through cooperation. He would probably have believed in: a universal basic income and proportional representation. But since his death in 2002, the world order has really changed. The new elite features such well-balanced individuals as Elon Musk! Our new Labour government is arguably centre right rather than centre left. Is this a cultural rather than a political phenomenon? The Democrat candidate Harris enlisted the support of left-wing musicians, while Trump was happy to associate with right-wing podcasters such as Joe Rogan. Are men and women going separate ways in terms of their voting tendencies? With Trump firmly in the Hobbesian camp, if only he knew it, does Rawlsian liberalism have any part to play? Even Romania yesterday voted for a right-winger. How will human race evolve? How are we feeling? Discussion Rawls's Theory of Justice Rawls's proposals are fine if the society designing its constitution is the Harvard Common Room.(L) One problem with the Original Position is that treating everyone equally will benefit the more motivated. As it stands, our society tends to reward achievers, but do we want to continue this?(V) A Universal Basic Income will encourage people to sit back and do nothing. It was always accepted that there would be some freeloaders under a Universal Basic Income scheme. One's motivation doesn’t develop when one is at the bottom of the ladder, unless one has a bit of luck.(M) Serendipity is needed.(R) It doesn't seem fair that only some children should have that serendipity.(M) The keyword is opportunity. Governments need to maintain and increase levels of opportunity.(R) We expect people to do something to help themselves.(V) One problem with the veil of ignorance is that you wouldn't know until you had agreed the design of your society whether you are a lazy bugger.(A) The right wing criticises the Theory of Justice saying it is absurd that we look at the interests of the worst-off in society.(L) How can one achieve social justice when we are subject to the antics of a small number of large corporations led by a small number of people?(R) Where’s the duty once you have given the population such things as freedom etc? Society should expect something in return.(J) In the families you are born into, money doesn’t always solve the problem. But money does control access to opportunities.(MC) Where The World is Headed The book titled The Fourth Turning suggests we should hang on. Rationality will eventually return.(H) The march of history is against that.(R) Some of us are already fed up with the Labour government because they are mimicking conservative attitudes, for example putting their stated priority of economic growth over all other principle.(S) The behaviour with regard to expenses was disappointing.(C) The only direction the UK is heading is in managing slow decline.(R) North Sea oil was one of the greatest impediments to our long-term economic growth, because we sat back and enjoyed the proceeds rather than develop new industries.(S) The Current Voter Preference for Strong Leaders Voters are looking for strong leaders. But such leaders might make matters worse. Communist rule brought Eastern Europe a sense of stability and security not experienced since the Berlin Wall came down.(A) To combat Trump, the USA needs a well-educated and science-based population.(R) Think back to the Russian Revolution where the Bolshevik strategy was to get rid of the middle class and intellectuals.(C) Despite two-thirds of the UK population supporting the Assisted Dying Bill, MPs don't trust us to do the right thing if the situation were to arise.(A) There's been too much woke talk and not enough woke action. Further talk about woke issues can turn the electorate against candidates.(L) Political leaders can get very out-of-touch with the wants of ordinary people. The ordinary people of both Gaza and Israel don’t want conflict.(C) Governments can be propped up by a minority of religious bigots.(R) Who would own the land in a one-state solution?(M) Weak incumbent governments can create wars simply to build support from their citizens. A common enemy creates unity.(V) The fall of Berlin war created a more unstable world.(A) Our Materialism, to the detriment of Social Cohesion As we get more wealthy, we prioritise our material possessions over everything else. Winning candidates need to focus on putting money in the people's pockets.(V) People don’t see that sharing their wealth would make it more secure.(A) Rituals are cohesive, but they are starting to fall apart, with social media encouraging the fragmentation.(A) Someone suggested that we need Earth to invaded by aliens to generate cohesion. An alternative suggestion is to get rid of our strong leaders.(C) The Industrial Revolution caused great upheaval and disconnection by moving people from villages to cities.(M) There was a lot of games-playing and socialising going on in pubs in the old days.(MC) If there is no community, how do you start?(J) You need to start with small numbers. But what happens when you have large numbers to deal with?(C) Work The Labour Party now talks about 'strivers'. But mental illness is leading people not to work.(S) Why was there no ADHD a century ago?(V) Education The government should bring back the Sure Start system. Get rid of fixed curricula in schools, and instead customise the teaching to the skills and needs of the child.(C) Montessoris?(R) Schools are not allowed to be imaginative now. If instead, children were encouraged to get involved in, say, bicycle repairs, that would teach them a lot of physics along the way.(L) In child-centred education, should we focus on enhancing their strengths or minimising their weaknesses?(V) Streaming seemed on paper to be a good idea. Does it still happen? Parents are a lot more involved now, checking homework, receiving emails from school, and their children seem motivated.(PM) Some of the basics have to be taught by rote, particularly to less able children, and to young children.(C) The education set up by unions and provided by Working Men’s Colleges is now seen as paternalistic, but there was a lot of education going on at such establishments.(V) Mental Health Issues People are sensorily deprived when they don't interact face-to-face. Being on one's phone is very one-dimensional. Mental illness springs up where there is no greenery.(S) The Need for Long-term Thinking People want things to be fixed overnight. And if they aren't, then people start wanting to get rid of those in charge.(V) Some say that the first-past-the-post system is the only way to get strong government. But all roads lead to proportional representation.(R) It's not just about representation. You need deliberative democracy as well.(S) You need to take time to discuss long-term problems.(M) The Dutch are proud that it takes a long time to come up with solutions to long-term problems.(R) The Dutch decision to flood certain areas of land was very difficult. But after much discussion, everyone in the end accepted it had to be done.(M) Migration 'Migrant' has become a negative word.(S) Migrants have shown great determination to get to the UK. They have a huge contribution to make to this country.(M) The only bad elements in the small boats crisis are the gangs that organise them.(C) One solution would be to charge the boat people on arrival, and then refund them depending on outcome of their case review.(V) It is distasteful that we base our decisions on migrants by their value to this country.(S) There should be different criteria for economic migrants versus refugees.(V) Both economic—for instance, those driven out by drought in their country—and asylum refugees should be welcomed.(M) We need to be careful not to set criteria which could mean the whole of Bangladesh would coming here.(V) Climate change will propel more and more Africans here. We need a coherent strategy.(R) But we don’t want to denude countries of their skilled workforce.(L) Positive change with an unpleasant leader is possible: cf. Uganda, where immigrants from South Sudan have been given plot of land and generated positive economic benefits for the country.(S) Today's Overton Window Good Things Bad Things The Sure Start programme Face-to-face interactions Refugees Green spaces Most of Holland John Rawls Proportional Representation Citizens Assemblies Deliberative democracy Donald Trump Social media Gangs behind the small boats crisis Podcast Referenced: Dr Gwen Adshead (2024). BBC Reith Lectures 2024 – Four Questions About Violence. BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1hQF5SLbjPBb8sDr9zHDbKX/bbc-reith-lectures-2024-four-questions-about-violence Books Recommended: William Dalrymple (1997). From the Holy Mountain: A Journey in the Shadow of Byzantium. HarperCollins. Neil Howe (2023). The Fourth Turning Is Here: What the Seasons of History Tell Us about How and When This Crisis Will End. Simon & Schuster. Will Buckingham (2024). The Philosophy Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas). DK.