[Chrysostom]

Alright, I apologize that I've taken so long to start up some discussion of any philosophers. I just wrote a private message to somebody about a book by John Rawls called A Theory Of Justice, and I figured it could be our first topic!

Rawls's book is the classic work of political philosophy of the 20th century, regardless of whether one agrees with it. It is incredibly long, probably to prove that he was a professor at Harvard, but here is the short, short version of what he says:

1. Justice = Fairness

2. To create a just society, we should begin with a clean slate from behind what he calls the Veil Of Ignorance. In other words, act like you know what the people in society will look like but you are ignorant of which of those people in society you will be, then design a social system that you think will be most fair (therefore just, since justice = fairness) to everybody.

3. From this he draws two guiding principles. First, that we should have a rich set of civil liberties available to every citizen. Second, that socio-economic inequalities should be treated by privileging the disadvantaged.

This is a renewed vision of what is called political liberalism, as opposed to libertarianism or communitarianism (or conservatism, but don't think that 'liberal' and 'conservative' here mean 'Democrat' and 'Republican'). The hope is that this creates a neutral, public ground in which people with different values can negotiate peaceably.

This notion is heavily criticized as imposing a new value set of its own that masquerades as neutral ground (in other words, it says it's a neutral ground to mediate between different value systems, but really it's a new value system in itself that replaces all those other value systems); later in life, Rawls basically admitted to this and hoped instead to find what he called an Overlapping Consensus, meaning that this would be "neutral ground" in that there was a consensus on justice as fairness from all the different major value systems, so they overlapped in this area and could therefore communicate here.

Unfortunately, this still did not solve the problem, because it's not clear why anything that happens to overlap would be a sufficient value system in its own right. Perhaps what make this overlapping consensus so convincing is not it in itself, i.e. is not justice = fairness in itself, but rather the overlapping section combined with the different particulars of various value systems.

It would also be criticized by libertarians for privileging a system of fairness over the rights of individuals, and by communitarians for thinking that the social aspects of people can be safely abstracted away behind the veil of ignorance without then losing what the community is all about.

-----

What do you think of his political vision? What are some good things about it, what are some bad things about it? Would you like to live in a society like this? What would a society like his look like? What would a worse society look like? A better society? What do you think of the criticism that this "neutral ground" is really another value system in disguise? Do you ever see this disguise play out in your daily life? How does this philosophy relate to Christian spirituality, theology, liturgy, and mission?

(Those are just questions to help you think. Answer any of them that you want to answer, not necessarily all, and answer another question entirely if you think it's interesting!)

[Chrysostom]

Hmm, no discussion yet. Maybe my post makes the task sound too formidable!

Good philosophy means thinking about the kinds of things that matter to everyone, just with more focus. Good philosophy is not about "checking the box" that you have come up with the right answer. Good philosophy is about looking at the things that really matter to you and for the world and examining them, in the hope that you will understand them better and therefore be able to proceed through life with more clarity. Good philosophy isn't just a task for obscure logicians; it's about looking intently at the things that really matter to us. If you do that, forget about getting the particulars perfect, because you've succeeded in the task of philosophy.

How about this question: Do you think justice is a good thing? Fairness? What does justice look like in the world? Fairness? How can we work to bring about justice or fairness in the world?

Or for the more theoretically minded: To get to justice/fairness Rawls uses his "veil of ignorance" strategy. Is that a good way to get to justice/fairness? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Is it better than any other models you have seen, heard of, or can imagine? Worse?

[slap_j]

The "veil is ignorance" is appealing to me because Christian ethics are deontological (maybe with some teleological elements?). So the idea that we have certain duties to one another makes sense to me. But what is justice? That's a big question.

[Thrash]

Perhaps I have been reading too much deconstructive theology lately, but I don't know if I like the idea of "duty" at all when it comes to fairness, justice, ethics, etc....
Not that all of the pieces that seem to make up the duty puzzle are negative, in my mind.
Caputo has a lengthy chapter in his More Radical Hermeneutics which addresses this problem of the "ought to do" or the "should do." The problem he sees is that it is very possible that having a "duty" can block someone from actually responding in a selfless matter. It all seems to come back down to the self, the selfishness of being obligated to do the duty and doing the duty to ultimately keep from feeling guilty. I don't believe he is saying that it is, by necessity, wrong, but rather that it can be a problem.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Thrash

The problem he sees is that it is very possible that having a "duty" can block someone from actually responding in a selfless matter. It all seems to come back down to the self, the selfishness of being obligated to do the duty and doing the duty to ultimately keep from feeling guilty.

Don't the Catholics have a term for that? Imperfect contrition?

[Thrash]

Very possible, especially since Caputo is Catholic.

[Ted Logan]

Take this as the ramblings of Sir Gauche acting in his official capacity.

The idea of determining what is just [=fair] from the Original Position makes some sense to me, but I don't understand how a non-theist can go from that to the claim that in the real world, where we are not under the veil of ignorance, we should prefer justice to self-interest.

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by slap_j

The "veil is ignorance" is appealing to me because Christian ethics are deontological (maybe with some teleological elements?). So the idea that we have certain duties to one another makes sense to me. But what is justice? That's a big question.

I've always thought Christian ethics was closer to virtue ethics (Plato->Aristotle->Augustine->Aquinas) but that it's always held in "check" by the radical nature of revelation (Kierkegaard/Barth).

Might be a question for another thread.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Or for the more theoretically minded: To get to justice/fairness Rawls uses his "veil of ignorance" strategy. Is that a good way to get to justice/fairness? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Is it better than any other models you have seen, heard of, or can imagine? Worse?

I remember doing a "veil of ignorance" exercise in my intro to Philosophy course a few years ago. It was just...boring. People just kind of gave vague conditions (no discrimination, everybody should be equal) as answers. I think this gets to the heart of the issue though.

Rawls just seems to skip the more basic parts of a philosophy of justice. This, I think, gives away the liberal philosophy that underpins his theory--it is not "neutral" as he seems to claim. There is no discussion of "the good," instead he purposes a extreme kind of "reasonable" compromise--tabling questions of the good in favor of practicality. This is philosophical liberalism at its finest. However, questions of the good don't really disappear just because they are ignored. By refusing to approach these kinds of questions on the basis that they are devise, Rawls buys into what is essentially a nihilistic ontology--humans are fundamentally at odds with each other and the best we can do is to agree to not kill each other.

If we cannot agree on what humans are for, we cannot not agree on what a good human is. This is the part that Rawls seems unaware of.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

I've always thought Christian ethics was closer to virtue ethics (Plato->Aristotle->Augustine->Aquinas) but that it's always held in "check" by the radical nature of revelation (Kierkegaard/Barth).

Flesh this out. What do you mean? Or, if you'd rather, why not write a short intro to Christian ethics and the radical nature of revelation in Kierkegaard?

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

I remember doing a "veil of ignorance" exercise in my intro to Philosophy course a few years ago. It was just...boring. People just kind of gave vague conditions (no discrimination, everybody should be equal) as answers. I think this gets to the heart of the issue though.

Yeah, I definitely come away from this "veil of ignorance" thinking that Rawls's world is pretty sterile! Right? I mean, it's like, what should really be behind our world is this mechanical system of disinterest. What about a world that is exciting, exploding with creativity? Beauty? Goodness? Truth? Rawls's world, I think, reduces to a life that's not really worth living.

But this is very important to consider, because this is the story that anyone who speaks English as well as we was taught as a child. This seems to have great power and significance in providing for class mobility, the dignity of the underdog, the potentiality of all people. What are ways in which we unwittingly believe Rawls's story? More important, is it worth it to provide this great individual mobility, and if so how can we do it without following Rawls?

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

Rawls just seems to skip the more basic parts of a philosophy of justice. This, I think, gives away the liberal philosophy that underpins his theory--it is not "neutral" as he seems to claim. There is no discussion of "the good," instead he purposes a extreme kind of "reasonable" compromise--tabling questions of the good in favor of practicality.

Yes, this is the part of the theory that I think is most subtly anti-Christian. Can we seriously imagine such a disembodied person? Can we seriously imagine the world without thinking of people in these social relations Rawls wants to bracket out, jobs and loves and commitments and friends and looks and abilities? Christians must affirm not people abstracted from physical life, but people who are truly and fully physical.

This must be balanced, of course. In Matthew 25 the sheep are surprised to discover that the poor, widow, sick, and hungry were in fact Jesus. In a sense this brackets out their physical situation. How can we both affirm the fully embodied character of human reality while allowing for Jesus' elevation of these people? While the sheep serve them because they fully care for these people as real, embodied people, eschatologically they become, in a sense, faceless, as they become Jesus. How do we hold both truths at once?

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

Rawls buys into what is essentially a nihilistic ontology--humans are fundamentally at odds with each other and the best we can do is to agree to not kill each other.

Yes, I think this is important. Are people caught in this eternal struggle of values which can only be solved by either violence or bracketing out those values? Christians trust instead the hope of the grace of God's peace in Christ. How could we reimagine the resolution of conflict and disagreement?

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

If we cannot agree on what humans are for, we cannot not agree on what a good human is. This is the part that Rawls seems unaware of.

Right, and so in the end I think he does give us what a good human is in that he tells us what things do and don't matter. I'd suggest that the passive consumer is an ultimate incarnation of the kind of person implied by his politics.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

How could we reimagine the resolution of conflict and disagreement?

This may be veering off topic slightly but...what do you think of Girard's theory about mimetic desire driving conflict? Is he right?

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by slap_j

This may be veering off topic slightly but...what do you think of Girard's theory about mimetic desire driving conflict? Is he right?

If you write up a short piece outlining it and send it to me we can start a thread to discuss it.

Edit: Somebody pointed out it sounds like I'm trying to micromanage. What I really mean it, this is a huge topic for another thread. Could you explain the question you're asking in one paragraph so we can discuss in the other thread?