“But recognizing the fact that your natural talents and particular life circumstances are arbitrary from the perspective of justice is not to argue that they are random from the perspective of the individual to whom they belong.” Well said.
"Importantly, this bargain takes place behind a veil of ignorance in which no individual party knows the particular circumstances of the people that they represent. Not their social position nor race nor gender nor natural ability. Instead, they only have access to general facts: social theory, political philosophy, the events of human history, facts about economics, the moral powers of democratic citizens, and so on. In this position, Rawls argues, the parties will select two principles of justice..."
His principles don't follow because he's not accounting for risk aversion or growth.
1. In the original position, parties who aren't risk averse would want principles of justice that maximize the total utility even if there's a lot of inequality. Rawls insanely just assumes that parties in the OP would be completely risk averse, i.e. that they would only care about the worst-case scenario.
2. In the original position, parties who don't know the year they'll be born would plausibly choose principles of justice that maximize growth, even if inequality increases (including inequality across time, i.e. where people born earlier are worse off than late born earlier).
----------
But really many conservatives would just reject the moral relevance of the OP/veil-of-ignorance arguments, which probably explains the reaction of the right-wing Twitter commenters. For example, if a conversation goes:
"I oppose US aid to Uganda."
"You should support it, because you could have been born in Uganda, in which case you would have supported US aid."
"No, I couldn't have been born in Uganda."
In this case, the RW poster probably rejects the moral relevance of any hypothetical OP contract.
And this makes sense, because contracts that you would have hypothetically made aren't usually considered binding. For example, if you buy a $1 lottery ticket and win $1m, you aren't obligated to concede to my demand that you give me $500k on the grounds that you would have done so before learning the result (i.e. in a hypothetical situation that I've decided is morally relevant).
I think it’s more a combination of ‘selfishness is good, empathy is bad’ libertarianism and a certain kind of bastardized millennial authenticity culture. ‘The invisible hand determined I would be a selfish jerk and any suggestion that I could even imagine behaving otherwise is both arrogant and constitutes a profound self betrayal.’
> The suggestion that people might adopt a political point of view that weighs the concerns of others on par with their own, let alone that people might exclude some of their own interests as a matter of justice, seems to strike many conservatives as so bizarre that they prefer to invent a factual disagreement to explain the divergence in points of view instead.
This is a very frequent occurrence in politics, but I don't think it occurs solely because the concerns of opponents sound absurd. Differences in fundamental values are annoying and don't show a clear path forward, so it feels nicer to pretend your opponents are stupid, and if you just yell about the truth enough, people will come to your side. That's why people will yammer about heartbeats and brainwaves when they're talking about abortion, or "basic economics" when they're talking about immigration. But if you really want to understand what's going on, you have to remember that conservatives show favoritism to their own nationality for the same reason you show favoritism to your own family, and liberals care about foreigners for the same reason 99% of people felt bad watching the end of Grave of the Fireflies.
It's especially irking when these right-wing accounts that spend all day pontificating about arbitrary racial genetic differences turn around and play dumb about this. If they hold those beliefs and have any sense of empathy, they should be more compelled by Rawls, not less!
its funny that the "Straussian" reading of their arguments suggests they intuit that liberalism is more just and less evil than what they wish to replace it with. Just a chicken shit kitchen sink narratives reminiscent of poorly thought up religious arguments.
Also, this is definitely more so an output of Red state power. Much the same way that church lands institutionalized and empowered church control. Not to say it isnt a threat though. Thank you for introducing these concepts, I hope to understand them one day.
It’s not a lack of imagination, like I can easily imagine the veil of ignorance. The issue is that I fundamentally disagree with the underlying principles it leads to. Why should I be willing to structure institutions to disadvantage my in-group in favor of benefiting the out-group? If I’ve been born with access to the “dog token” through genetics, culture, etc. why on earth would I give that up or agree to diminish it in anyway? In the game that makes me the nobility of the board and I’m not interested in leveling the playing field to make others feel better.
That doesn’t mean I’m heartless. I’d happily practice noblesse oblige. Because that’s like, a personal choice rooted in virtue and not a mandated restructuring of the entire system of human society and our objective reality. But the difference principle, “to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society,” strikes me as most patently absurd. It’s like designing for the lowest common denominator. Why prioritize the base comfort of unknown people over the comfort of the known people? Societies thrive when excellence and hierarchy thrive (Plato’s Republic…), not with equality of outcome. If that makes me a conservative idiot lacking in “ imagination,” so be it.
Rawlsian Thought in general strikes me as resentful, moralistic, and frankly I feel like, to quote Peter Griffin: “It insists upon itself.”
Allan Bloom’s 1975 review is probably the best conservative rebuttal to A Theory of Justice. These arguments have all been had before. It’s just the heat map meme over and over again. Doesn’t mean liberals or conservatives are stupid, it just means we care about different things.
Which is why Rawls ultimately falls apart; it’s not based in the reality of human nature.
“But recognizing the fact that your natural talents and particular life circumstances are arbitrary from the perspective of justice is not to argue that they are random from the perspective of the individual to whom they belong.” Well said.
"Importantly, this bargain takes place behind a veil of ignorance in which no individual party knows the particular circumstances of the people that they represent. Not their social position nor race nor gender nor natural ability. Instead, they only have access to general facts: social theory, political philosophy, the events of human history, facts about economics, the moral powers of democratic citizens, and so on. In this position, Rawls argues, the parties will select two principles of justice..."
His principles don't follow because he's not accounting for risk aversion or growth.
1. In the original position, parties who aren't risk averse would want principles of justice that maximize the total utility even if there's a lot of inequality. Rawls insanely just assumes that parties in the OP would be completely risk averse, i.e. that they would only care about the worst-case scenario.
2. In the original position, parties who don't know the year they'll be born would plausibly choose principles of justice that maximize growth, even if inequality increases (including inequality across time, i.e. where people born earlier are worse off than late born earlier).
----------
But really many conservatives would just reject the moral relevance of the OP/veil-of-ignorance arguments, which probably explains the reaction of the right-wing Twitter commenters. For example, if a conversation goes:
"I oppose US aid to Uganda."
"You should support it, because you could have been born in Uganda, in which case you would have supported US aid."
"No, I couldn't have been born in Uganda."
In this case, the RW poster probably rejects the moral relevance of any hypothetical OP contract.
And this makes sense, because contracts that you would have hypothetically made aren't usually considered binding. For example, if you buy a $1 lottery ticket and win $1m, you aren't obligated to concede to my demand that you give me $500k on the grounds that you would have done so before learning the result (i.e. in a hypothetical situation that I've decided is morally relevant).
I think it’s more a combination of ‘selfishness is good, empathy is bad’ libertarianism and a certain kind of bastardized millennial authenticity culture. ‘The invisible hand determined I would be a selfish jerk and any suggestion that I could even imagine behaving otherwise is both arrogant and constitutes a profound self betrayal.’
> The suggestion that people might adopt a political point of view that weighs the concerns of others on par with their own, let alone that people might exclude some of their own interests as a matter of justice, seems to strike many conservatives as so bizarre that they prefer to invent a factual disagreement to explain the divergence in points of view instead.
This is a very frequent occurrence in politics, but I don't think it occurs solely because the concerns of opponents sound absurd. Differences in fundamental values are annoying and don't show a clear path forward, so it feels nicer to pretend your opponents are stupid, and if you just yell about the truth enough, people will come to your side. That's why people will yammer about heartbeats and brainwaves when they're talking about abortion, or "basic economics" when they're talking about immigration. But if you really want to understand what's going on, you have to remember that conservatives show favoritism to their own nationality for the same reason you show favoritism to your own family, and liberals care about foreigners for the same reason 99% of people felt bad watching the end of Grave of the Fireflies.
It's especially irking when these right-wing accounts that spend all day pontificating about arbitrary racial genetic differences turn around and play dumb about this. If they hold those beliefs and have any sense of empathy, they should be more compelled by Rawls, not less!
Good article !
its funny that the "Straussian" reading of their arguments suggests they intuit that liberalism is more just and less evil than what they wish to replace it with. Just a chicken shit kitchen sink narratives reminiscent of poorly thought up religious arguments.
Also, this is definitely more so an output of Red state power. Much the same way that church lands institutionalized and empowered church control. Not to say it isnt a threat though. Thank you for introducing these concepts, I hope to understand them one day.
It’s not a lack of imagination, like I can easily imagine the veil of ignorance. The issue is that I fundamentally disagree with the underlying principles it leads to. Why should I be willing to structure institutions to disadvantage my in-group in favor of benefiting the out-group? If I’ve been born with access to the “dog token” through genetics, culture, etc. why on earth would I give that up or agree to diminish it in anyway? In the game that makes me the nobility of the board and I’m not interested in leveling the playing field to make others feel better.
That doesn’t mean I’m heartless. I’d happily practice noblesse oblige. Because that’s like, a personal choice rooted in virtue and not a mandated restructuring of the entire system of human society and our objective reality. But the difference principle, “to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society,” strikes me as most patently absurd. It’s like designing for the lowest common denominator. Why prioritize the base comfort of unknown people over the comfort of the known people? Societies thrive when excellence and hierarchy thrive (Plato’s Republic…), not with equality of outcome. If that makes me a conservative idiot lacking in “ imagination,” so be it.
Rawlsian Thought in general strikes me as resentful, moralistic, and frankly I feel like, to quote Peter Griffin: “It insists upon itself.”
Allan Bloom’s 1975 review is probably the best conservative rebuttal to A Theory of Justice. These arguments have all been had before. It’s just the heat map meme over and over again. Doesn’t mean liberals or conservatives are stupid, it just means we care about different things.
Which is why Rawls ultimately falls apart; it’s not based in the reality of human nature.