Philosophyking87
It Thinks For Itself
Not sure if anyone's done this topic here before.
At any rate, are there any Rawlsian liberals here?
If so, what do you believe the pros of this system to be?
If not, what do you believe the cons of this system to be?
Furthermore, it would help to elaborate on your own particular view of the appropriate approach to political philosophy.
Personally, I'm largely in favor of Rawlsian liberalism, though I am open to other viewpoints. So far, from the many texts I've read on this topic, Rawls' system seems the most logical, fair, rational, and just. Many of the arguments against his view do not appear to hold water. In my judgment (so far at least), the notion that no individual has any control over whether or not they happen to enjoy beneficial traits or conditions in life, and that therefore there is no true 'desert,' appears air-tight. While people do in fact work harder or not so hard (despite natural social and economic advantages or disadvantages), this may amount to nothing more than dispositions no less arbitrary than the color of one's eyes.
Yet, in response to Rawls, many still find that harder work and effort should be rewarded or 'deserved.' Yet while I am apt to agree with Rawls that no one truly deserves anything, given everything we do results from unearned dispositions and attributes we at no point chose or worked for, it is still the case that under Rawls' system, those with the better traits, a disposition to work harder (i.e. a natural 'work ethic'), more impulse control, better social conditions (i.e. higher SES), etc. still end up with a larger amount of resources than everyone else. The upshot of Rawls' system is, then, that the least well-off are naturally compensated for inferior qualities (in order to mitigate the effect of "brute luck"). In other words, the least well-off always benefit from any inequality, while the most well-off benefit even more (though not as greatly as they would under a purely meritocratic system of some sort... though that sort of system would appear to be unjust!).
To me, this view of social life makes the most sense; it's the most just (as it views humans from a purely neutral perspective, without presuming that some people naturally choose to be better than others, as this is often not the case). In this sense, it's non-judgmental and free of the social prejudice that often contributes to social and economic inequity.
Yet some may still wish to argue for the notion that we do in fact choose to work hard and live a better life, while some consciously choose not to despite knowing full well that alternative courses of action will harm them in the long run. In other words, some people choose to be lazy. On the face of it, most arguments of this sort appear to beg the question, as no true evidence is given to support the idea that we are in fact free (with respect to will) in making these supposed "decisions." What reasons are there to believe that we are in fact free in making these decisions, and therefore, accountable for them? Surely if someone commits a crime, they should be held liable for the sake of utility (i.e., avoiding harm to others). It's a prudent, practical matter in this case. Yet why should we also say that someone with less ambition and determination 'deserves' to be held accountable for such tendencies? To me, it is markedly evident (obvious) that people are largely driven by psychological dispositions (whether genetic or environmental). Thus, I do not see how Rawls' basic argument against libertarianism/meritocracy can be denied. We do not appear to be free, and thus, do not deserve to suffer from the 'natural lottery' (as it is called).
A useful distinction here is between what the philosopher Peter Strawson calls the "reactive attitude" and the "objective attitude." The former has to do with treating individuals as autonomous agents capable of making choices and growing/learning from mistakes. The latter has to do with treating individuals as the result of external forces, with much less autonomy (if any at all). I would argue that the reactive attitude is based on what Buddhist call a 'conventional truth.' That is, the idea that people are free and autonomous is a practical, useful notion we use to live, albeit one which is not ultimately true (and thus, not an 'ultimate truth'). The ultimate truth is instead that individuals are not very autonomous (and thus, the objective attitude is much more warranted by the facts). The only obvious exception to this attitude, again, is when we have to prevent harm to society by putting away those who endanger others (or perhaps for the sake of certain basic moral notions, such as Kant's principle of respect for persons). Moreover, it's useful to note here that Rawls' system does not lack respect for persons, as it does not suppose that people own (or are entitled to) the benefits of their natural attributes (as again, they do not earn them in any form). (And why would it lack respect for persons? Rawls based his view on both contractarianism and Kantianism...)
So, a very pertinent question: do we choose to work hard, or are we simply predisposed to such behavior? If one can argue the former adequately, then Rawls' system is less successful. If one cannot argue the former adequately, then we are instead predisposed to such behavior, and Rawls' system appears to be the most just (in light of this fact). My judgment, again, is clearly that the former is not true, and therefore, that Rawlsian liberalism is the ideal political philosophy (as I think this is the biggest problem facing the view, and the main reason one would wish to reject it).
Feel free to contribute in any manner.
At any rate, are there any Rawlsian liberals here?
If so, what do you believe the pros of this system to be?
If not, what do you believe the cons of this system to be?
Furthermore, it would help to elaborate on your own particular view of the appropriate approach to political philosophy.
Personally, I'm largely in favor of Rawlsian liberalism, though I am open to other viewpoints. So far, from the many texts I've read on this topic, Rawls' system seems the most logical, fair, rational, and just. Many of the arguments against his view do not appear to hold water. In my judgment (so far at least), the notion that no individual has any control over whether or not they happen to enjoy beneficial traits or conditions in life, and that therefore there is no true 'desert,' appears air-tight. While people do in fact work harder or not so hard (despite natural social and economic advantages or disadvantages), this may amount to nothing more than dispositions no less arbitrary than the color of one's eyes.
Yet, in response to Rawls, many still find that harder work and effort should be rewarded or 'deserved.' Yet while I am apt to agree with Rawls that no one truly deserves anything, given everything we do results from unearned dispositions and attributes we at no point chose or worked for, it is still the case that under Rawls' system, those with the better traits, a disposition to work harder (i.e. a natural 'work ethic'), more impulse control, better social conditions (i.e. higher SES), etc. still end up with a larger amount of resources than everyone else. The upshot of Rawls' system is, then, that the least well-off are naturally compensated for inferior qualities (in order to mitigate the effect of "brute luck"). In other words, the least well-off always benefit from any inequality, while the most well-off benefit even more (though not as greatly as they would under a purely meritocratic system of some sort... though that sort of system would appear to be unjust!).
To me, this view of social life makes the most sense; it's the most just (as it views humans from a purely neutral perspective, without presuming that some people naturally choose to be better than others, as this is often not the case). In this sense, it's non-judgmental and free of the social prejudice that often contributes to social and economic inequity.
Yet some may still wish to argue for the notion that we do in fact choose to work hard and live a better life, while some consciously choose not to despite knowing full well that alternative courses of action will harm them in the long run. In other words, some people choose to be lazy. On the face of it, most arguments of this sort appear to beg the question, as no true evidence is given to support the idea that we are in fact free (with respect to will) in making these supposed "decisions." What reasons are there to believe that we are in fact free in making these decisions, and therefore, accountable for them? Surely if someone commits a crime, they should be held liable for the sake of utility (i.e., avoiding harm to others). It's a prudent, practical matter in this case. Yet why should we also say that someone with less ambition and determination 'deserves' to be held accountable for such tendencies? To me, it is markedly evident (obvious) that people are largely driven by psychological dispositions (whether genetic or environmental). Thus, I do not see how Rawls' basic argument against libertarianism/meritocracy can be denied. We do not appear to be free, and thus, do not deserve to suffer from the 'natural lottery' (as it is called).
A useful distinction here is between what the philosopher Peter Strawson calls the "reactive attitude" and the "objective attitude." The former has to do with treating individuals as autonomous agents capable of making choices and growing/learning from mistakes. The latter has to do with treating individuals as the result of external forces, with much less autonomy (if any at all). I would argue that the reactive attitude is based on what Buddhist call a 'conventional truth.' That is, the idea that people are free and autonomous is a practical, useful notion we use to live, albeit one which is not ultimately true (and thus, not an 'ultimate truth'). The ultimate truth is instead that individuals are not very autonomous (and thus, the objective attitude is much more warranted by the facts). The only obvious exception to this attitude, again, is when we have to prevent harm to society by putting away those who endanger others (or perhaps for the sake of certain basic moral notions, such as Kant's principle of respect for persons). Moreover, it's useful to note here that Rawls' system does not lack respect for persons, as it does not suppose that people own (or are entitled to) the benefits of their natural attributes (as again, they do not earn them in any form). (And why would it lack respect for persons? Rawls based his view on both contractarianism and Kantianism...)
So, a very pertinent question: do we choose to work hard, or are we simply predisposed to such behavior? If one can argue the former adequately, then Rawls' system is less successful. If one cannot argue the former adequately, then we are instead predisposed to such behavior, and Rawls' system appears to be the most just (in light of this fact). My judgment, again, is clearly that the former is not true, and therefore, that Rawlsian liberalism is the ideal political philosophy (as I think this is the biggest problem facing the view, and the main reason one would wish to reject it).
Feel free to contribute in any manner.
