Guidelines/Requirements:
1) Write a 50 - 100 word exegetical sentence (critical
analysis, explanation, interpretation) that captures the essence of the readings. Consider
the following: What are the main arguments (explicit and
implicit)? What is the point? Why has
the author tried to communicate something, in that way, and at that time, to
his/her audience?
2) Assumptions/Presuppositions: FIRST, what were YOUR assumptions and
presuppositions coming to this reading?
Then consider: Where does the author stand? What is assumed or taken for
granted in this piece of writing? Who is the assumed audience of this piece? As
a reader, work to pay attention to and discover the values, beliefs, biases,
and assumptions (sometimes overt, sometimes subtle) underlying what you read.
3)
Identifying any significant
insights that you took away from the
reading and/or class discussion (e.g. something you learned, a comment made in class that left
an impression, a paradigm shift, etc.).
Students
are encouraged to think about Rawls, Mills' critique of Rawls, AND Wilson's response to Mills' critique
Students
are also encouraged to read other student's posts and offer comments.
(You do not have to read every post in the class, but try to read 2-3
and offer comments/feedback.
1. John Rawles touches on many different things in his piece "A Theory of Justice". In his writing, Rawles outlines that Justice us the maximum moral standard and that citizens within a society should be equal and society itself should be equal. He then goes on to say that a person's standing in society should not determine the kind of benefits they receive and that justice if for the benefit of all rather than just one specific group. This is different from an equal distribution of wealth however, as he states that if all have an equal opportunity to compete for something, than an unequal distribution is normal. He also highlights a thought experiment called the veil of ignorance, in that all people would forget their own biases and situated knowledge, and attempt to look at the social situation of society without any knowledge of your own standing.
ReplyDelete2. I had never heard of John Rawles before this class, but found that my views of justice matched his to some degree. Initially reading it, I thought that Rawles ideas about an equal and fair society, one that gave people equal opportunity regardless of social standing was something that I can definitely get behind. I also agree with the idea that people don't choose or deserve to be born into a specific situation, regardless if it is an upper or lower class individual. Rawles also emphasizes that each person has an equal set of basic liberties, much like Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau talked about. I also though that his idea that the inequity of resources is ok as long as their is equal opportunity is a good point and one I think has merit. After discussion however, it is important to note that the main idea of Rawles piece, the veil of ignorance, has a major flaw according to Charles Mills, and that is that Rawles completely disregards the role of race in this society that he is imagining. Rawles was writing this piece during the civil rights movement, so to Mills it seems odd that race is not mentioned at all in this piece. Mills stops short of calling Rawles a racist however. After further looking at the reading, it does seem odd that Rawles does not mention anything about race and civil rights as applied to this time, mainly because it was such a prevalent issue during this time. It also would have made him more relatable to his audience if he had addressed it, as he would have been able to write for more than just a niche group of people. Whether intentionally or not, Rawles seems to ignore many different groups of people and fails to address his argument as applied to anyone besides a white male.
3. While I do think it is odd that Rawles doesn't address race in his piece, I dont think that makes him a racist and I dont believe that discredits his argument. It still has merit in many different aspects. I think his overall principle of equality in society based on the merits of a person is , although idealistic, something that people as a whole should strive for. I do however, believe that the veil of ignorance idea is something that is just not plausible, even as a thought experiment. It is hard for anyone to get rid of their situated knowledge, and there are so many different scenarios to play out with this type of experiment. The role of race also comes into play in this, as it is easy for some people to get rid of their situated knowledge, as some have never had to deal with the hardships that others have based on class or race. It is hard for some to get rid of this situated knowledge, as sometimes the injustice is just to great to ignore.
I agree with you that equal opportunity in a society based on merit is an ideal goal to strive for. As you said though, you can't really get there with the veil of ignorance, as humans are generally incapable of putting their personal biases aside.
Delete1. John Rawls presents a theory of justice for a liberal society. It is a conception of justice that provides legitimate use of power in civil society. Although a political order can be legitimate without being just, the presence of justice enables the political institutions to reach the maximum moral standard. John Rawls looks at how the role of government impacts society. According to him, citizens are free and equal and society should be fair—thus, the concept of justice as fairness answers the demands of freedom and equality. For Rawls there is no state of nature, but rather an original position which is a thought experiment that will lead to an agreement on how society should function under a just, fair society. The veil the ignorance is part of this original position. This theoretical veil prohibits citizens from seeing the personal identities of others. This way a just society is reached because no one is favored over someone else. However, citizens are aware of the moderate scarcity of resources in their society, of each others’ interests in primary goods, and of general facts about life that are uncontroversial behind the veil of ignorance. Rawls’ theory allows for differences and inequality, but society should not see people dropping below a certain level of poverty or disadvantage.
ReplyDelete2. I had never heard of John Rawls nor did I expect him to be a fairly contemporary political philosopher compared to 17th and 18th century Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. It is interesting to finally apply the terms “men” and “man” to whom Rawls referrers to in his theory to all of mankind instead of males only. His academic audience would still have most likely been dominantly white and male, however his broader audience would have included men and women with some racial diversity. In the original version of Rawls’ theory of justice, racial injustice was not discussed; also, race and gender were not featured in the information that citizens were not aware of behind the veil of ignorance. Criticized heavily for this omission, it is unclear whether Rawls may have assumed that his readers would automatically place those social identifiers in the category of information that citizens are prohibited from acknowledging from behind the veil. Yolanda Wilson addresses this when she writes that Rawls—in his situation as a professor at Harvard, surrounded by mostly educated white men—would not have seen it necessary to mention race and gender in his theory because it was not as present on his mind as it on, say, Charles Mills’ mind. In later editions of this theory, Rawls chooses to include race and gender among the characteristics that citizens are not aware of behind the veil. This is either an admission of his intentional omission or simply a revision of his previous work.
3. According to Charles Mills, John Rawls’ theory of justice is incomplete since it does not include a discussion of racial inequalities. In my opinion, he presents a convincing argument because it is true that even if Rawls’ attention may not have been focused on the Civil Rights movement, there are plenty of historical example—such as racial discrimination against Native Americans in the United States and European colonization—that he could have used. Yolanda Wilson counters Mills’ argument not by defending Rawls but rather asking why it matters that Rawls did not include racial injustice in his theory of justice as fairness. I side with her as well on that. As it was said in class, John Rawls was free to write about whatever he wanted and he was also free to choose whether he wanted to discuss racial injustice or not. To me, his theory is also very idealistic; therefore is a discussion about racial injustice even necessary? The idea of the veil of ignorance is also an ideal and does not seem completely feasible in a real-life political system. In class, it was said that the veil of ignorance was perhaps not so much a representation of everyone else’s views, but more just about abandoning one’s own views. In my opinion, it is still unrealistic to think that people could see past all of the defining individual characteristics of their fellow citizens and reach decisions that benefit the society as w hole.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a good point when talking about how idealistic Rawls' theory is. I was kind of thinking the same thing, like regardless of what the veil of ignorance does or does not include, its not feasible either way. It would be nice if humans could become that objective, but I don't see that happening anytime soon...
Delete1. John Rawls takes a very different approach than the other philosophers we studied. His idea of the veil of ignorance is very original and interesting. Taking class, gender and race (even though Rawls added these later) out of the equation would make for a much more equal society. Rawls also says that equality is very important, both equality of rights, and overall equality in society.
ReplyDelete2. I don't think I had ever even heard Rawls' name before this class, so I didn't really have any expectations or assumptions for his philosophy. As far as Rawls' biases, I think our discussion in class covered them pretty well. While he was probably not racist or sexist, he certainly does not give much attention to issues of racial justice or gender equality. His audience, while never explicitly stated, seems to generally be the rich white males that are prevalent in philosophy and at Harvard. Once I understood that Rawls did not originally include gender and race in the veil of ignorance, he seems even less aware of the issues facing women and minorities. I think it would be assuming too much to call him willfully ignorant, but it would not have taken much effort to include some of these other issues that he chose to ignore.
3. My overall feelings on Rawls are mixed. On the one hand, I think his concept of justice as fairness is potentially a good one, and the veil of ignorance is a very interesting thought experiment. However, the glaring flaws in both his ideas, and his omissions, make me question his overall integrity. As repeatedly stated in class, there is almost no way that Rawls could not have been aware of the civil rights movement going on while he was composing his work. Besides a few token mentions, he seems to completely ignore one of the greatest instances of injustice in recent times. Rawls is still a relevant and interesting philosopher, but after learning more about him, I plan to take everything he says with a grain of salt.
To your third point, after learning about the checked past of almost every major thinker (Locke, Jefferson, Washington, etc.) I think that Oscar Wilde said it best, "Every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future." The best we can do is learn from their mistakes and try and salvage the more virtuous parts of their philosophy.
DeleteDuncan, I found myself experiencing a similar feeling regarding Rawls and his works that you describe in your third response. I wanted to believe much of what he was saying while reading "A Theory of Justice" and out of all of the philosophical works we have read, this one seemed to make the most sense and he the most applicable to a society. However, after reading Mills and Wilson, I, too, was left questioning Rawls' integrity. Maybe if we are allowed to read more of his works later on in the year, we can position ourselves on either the "for" or "against" side when it comes to Rawls and how much we believe him!
Delete1. John Rawls presents us with a quite intriguing theory in his work “A Theory of Justice”. He suggests that if a government’s leaders are able to put aside their personal biases and situated knowledge and step behind a “veil of ignorance”, these leaders will be able to come up with a system that will benefit as many people as possible. This veil of ignorance requires one to imagine that they do not know where they will stand in society or what kind of background they come from and to come up with a system where they will reap maximum benefits. The idea is that when someone doesn’t know what role they will play in society, their natural tendency towards self-preservation will shift to truly value the equality of all because they do not want to risk being at a disadvantage.
ReplyDelete2. Coming into this reading, I was actually already familiar with the idea of a “veil of ignorance” but was unable to match it up with a name. Thus, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that I was already somewhat familiar with Rawls’ philosophy. I was also happy about the fact that “A Theory of Justice” was written during the 1970s as opposed to hundreds of years ago like the other philosophers we’ve studied. To me, this meant that Rawls’ “lens” would be far more similar to mine and that I wouldn’t have to go as easy on anything I disagreed with with the cliché excuse that Rawls was “a man of his time”. As far as Rawls’ philosophy goes, I think his utilitarian ideals are great in theory but difficult to put into practice as it is quite the challenge to completely discount one’s personal experiences and stance in society. Even if the leaders of a government did try to put his theory into action, I believe that their personal biases would still be present on a subconscious level and that because of this, a perfect outcome is impossible. Despite this, I do really like the theory of a veil of ignorance and believe it to be a good ideal to strive for. A perfect system of government is likely impossible but Rawls’ theory might help us get close. Additionally, I believe that Rawls’ intended audience for this piece was other members of the academic community.
3. While it seems strange that Rawls did not discuss race much in “A Theory of Justice”, I’m not convinced that this makes him a racist or that it warrants his theory incredible the way Charles Mills suggested in his article Rawls on Race/Race in Rawls. I think that Yolonda Wilson brought up a good point in her article “When is Omission a Fault?” when she argues that “Rawls can give an account of social justice without taking race into account not because he is attempting to sanitize history, but because he does not have to think about a history outside of his own”. This point caused me to reconsider Rawls’ lens and take into account that while he clearly values equality, he has one huge thing in common with the other, less progressive philosophers we’ve studied: he is a successful, educated white man. As Wilson acknowledges, Rawls is likely thinking in terms of his own history and not the history of others. It is because of this that he can write in support of equality while brushing over race so easily. Quite simply, Rawls does not know what it’s like to be nonwhite. This is not a fault of Rawls but simply a fact. It is impossible for anyone to truly understand what it is like to be anything but what they are because they will never experience it firsthand. This doesn’t mean that we cannot learn about, respect, and support those of groups that we do not belong to but we will still never be able to truly understand what it is like to step into anyone else’s shoes. To me, there is some beauty in this. Consider just our class discussions alone: we all have had our own unique experience in life that we can advocate for and because of this, we are able to teach each other. I do believe Rawls’ lack of acknowledgement on the subject of race is a downfall in his theory because as a philosopher discussing equality, it seems strange that he would brush over such an obvious aspect of it. However, I’m skeptical of dismissing a theory based on what is not written when I find value in so much of what is.
DeleteI think your point about Rawls not knowing what its like to be nonwhite is a great one. His theory deals with the research and experience of his own life, which is the way it should be. He is not an authority on race relations, nor does he pretend to be.
Delete1. Rawls attempts to write an all-encompassing view on justice, which is summarized by his view that justice is fairness. Rawls believes that mankind has had this “original position” which is not an actual state, but more of a thought experiment that resembles the state of nature for Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. For Rawls though, the “original position” is where mankind moves into society and creates a system of justice that is fair and legitimate for all. In the original position it is essential that people operate under a “veil of ignorance” in which mankind makes the decisions that govern justice as entities that are unknowing of their persona in society, they do not know their economic class, race, gender, sexual orientation, or anything about themselves personally. This is a thought experiment done so that the society that is agreed upon would be fair for anyone from any background.
ReplyDelete2. I have heard of the veil of ignorance before I had read any of Rawls, but I did not know that it was his idea, or that the idea was so contemporary. In my business classes I’ve actually had to participate in exercises that would simulate the veil of ignorance but in a working environment. We had to place ourselves behind a veil of ignorance and develop a system of hiring people that would be fair to everyone. This being said, I feel like I look at Rawls’s theory as goal that we should be striving for because that is the way I have been taught. However, after reading Mill’s criticism of Rawls, I am beginning to see some faults in his original position.
Rawls differs from the other social contract theorists because he is much more contemporary than Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau. As a result, he has a larger audience that he is attempting to address and needs to distinguish himself from those who came before him. I feel that one of the big things that is taken for granted in this writing is that there is already an established “sovereign” or government that would be able to enforce the idea of “justice is fairness”. I feel that without some method of enforcing this method of justice than it will never become anything more than a thought experiment.
I feel that one of the underlying attitudes of Rawl’s theory has some socialist type ideals. Rawls makes the point that justice is fairness, but he also recognizes that inequalities can be allowed. However, these inequalities must always be to the benefit of the less fortunate. To me, this seems like Rawls is allowing for the people in a worse situation to be brought up to the level of everyone else. While this may just be a way to try to compensate for inequalities that were made in the past, I do not believe that something can be fair if it is only a possibility for one group of people.
*Continuted*
Delete3. Mill’s criticism of Rawls, along with insights from Yolanda Wilson definitely left me with some interesting thoughts. After reading Rawls initially, I believed that his original position and the veil of ignorance were great factors that would lead to a society where justice is fairness. After having used the veil of ignorance in my business classes too (with great success), I thoroughly agreed with Rawls. After I read Mill’s though, I had some doubts about his argument. After Mill pointed out that Rawls’s omitted race in his construction of justice, I started to question the legitimacy of his argument. Wilson also provided some interesting insight because she pointed out that while Rawls neglected to include race while he was writing during the civil rights movement, he also excluded the Vietnam war, which he lived through as well.
After reading both arguments on this issue, I do not think that we can fault Rawls’s entire construction of justice on the omission of race. I myself did not notice that he excluded race in the veil of ignorance, but I was still able to use it as a method to create a functioning work environment that would be fair for everyone involved. Although, I do think that there needs to be an inclusion of race in order to make his argument much more powerful, and altogether more realistic. I also feel that Rawls himself acknowledged this, as he did write a revised version to his original work, which included race. This shows that Rawls himself felt that something was missing from his original piece, and his addition of race is in some ways an admittance that it is necessary in any work pertaining to justice.
TJ,
DeleteYour point about Rawls rewriting his original piece to include race is an important one, and I think this does show an admittance that race is vital to theories of justice. Great post overall.
I agree that omissions do not necessarily discredit entire arguments but that having a more comprehensive argument always contributes to overall legitimacy.
Delete1. Unlike Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, Rawls does not begin his philosophical discussion from the state of nature. Instead, Rawls stakes his ground at what he calls the "original position." This is a state in which the individual has no indication of any of one's own characteristics (gender, socioeconomic status/ ect.) Rawls argues that in such a position, one would favor a system that promotes the greatest amount of fairness and equality. Perfectly applied, Rawls system would create a world of total parity and justice.
ReplyDelete2. Prior to this class, I had heard of Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance, but it had been quite some time since I had read any of Rawls's work. Additionally, I had actually forgotten just how recent this work actually was. As such, it was nice to read a more recent political philosophy rather than one that is more than two hundred years old. With his more modern view, Rawls presents a system that I found to be much more in line with my own, and I think many modern politicians and philosophers would agree with the fundamentals of his system. If there is a flaw that I could find with his system, it would be that he is assuming that the entire population would all simultaneously act under the veil of ignorance. For, if even one person were to peak out from underneath it, the entire system would fall apart. However, unlike Hobbes, I think I have enough faith in humanity to, at the least, hope that the system woud work. Lastly, like most of the previous works that we have read, the audience of this piece is primarily white men. However, since he is writing in a more modern time, the piece can be more widely distributed and a greater percentage of the population is literate and thus able to read it.
3. We spent a considerable amount of time discussing Rawls's view on race and civil liberties within class. However, without a concerte example of either a blatantly racist comment or action, it is tough to label him as hostile to other races. A lack of an opinion on a matter does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the opposite position. Additionally, from a psychological perspective, I was very interested in the practical application of the veil of ignorance. It seems to be a classic prisoner's dilemma on global scale, which is a very interesting case. If everyone were to respect the veil of ignorance, then everyone in the system would get an equal, positive outcome. However, there is a tremendous incentive for an individual to cheat, and momentarily lift the veil of ignorance in order to further laws that would advance one disproportionally to others within the system. Hobbes would suggest that a sovereign could fix this, but as we have discussed, the introduction of sovereign would only serve to create more problems. Instead, we must trust in the goodness of humanity and hope that all could remain as impartial judges of the law.
Ryan, I agree with the first point of your response to the third question. I, too, think that it is difficult for us to try to place a label on Rawls merely because he did not include race in his works. Considering this is a thought experiment and hypothetical situation anyways, who is to say that maybe in Rawls' utopian society, there isn't a social construction of race? I think that this is an important point to consider. And it also nicely relates to previous discussions we've had related to Hobbes and Locke and the respective works that examined their racial stance. One action, or lack thereof, does not necessarily make someone a racist. Mills' piece seemed just shy of outright calling Rawls a racist for his omission of race and I don't know if that is fair.
Delete1) In Rawls’s “A Theory of Justice” he describes his idea of “Justice as Fairness” where individuals would, in a liberal society, try to eliminate/minimize their personal biases created by any type of position that would make them different from others (i.e. class, race, gender, particular gifts they may have,) and create a social contract based on what they came up with while in this “original position” behind a “veil of ignorance.”
ReplyDelete2) I did not have any assumptions coming into this reading because I did not have any prior knowledge of Rawls... I do, however, feel that Rawls himself makes many assumptions in the excerpt of “A Theory of Justice” that we read. He assumes that citizens are free and equal, and that society should be fair. In his vision of social contract theory, he states that social cooperation is necessary and citizens are not indifferent to how the burdens of cooperation will fall among them. I see a dissonance in these two ideas. How can every individual be totally objective and fair if they are not indifferent to how the burdens of cooperation will affect them? If people are looking out for their own personal interests above group interests, they are in fact enacting their situated knowledge and disregarding group preferences to an extent. He also discusses inequalities at length, stating that the only inequalities that exist must be attached to offices and positions available to all under equal opportunity, and that any social and economic inequalities are to be to the most benefit of the least privileged members of society (to satisfy the difference principle.) Here he assumes that natural endowments and willingness are evenly distributed amongst children born into different demographics. So he basically asserts that inequalities are okay as long as the playing field for opportunities is fair to all. He wants to ensure that socially ascribed identities will not prevent people from having access to certain opportunities, and that people with specific gifts are given sufficient opportunities to cultivate their talents. With further discussion I can see why his idea seemed like a good one at the time: Of course, ideally, redistribution should make the poor less poor, to provide a floor so no one falls below a certain minimum lifestyle, but in practice this sounds a bit like the tale of Robinhood.
3) I am highly skeptical of the notion that people are capable of removing their situatedness to make decisions for the good of the whole. Are people even capable of envisioning the world from another’s frame of mind? If they are, does doing so denigrate the value of their opinions in that state given they have no life experience to legitimately back up their feelings and preferences? Ideally, trying to emulate a neutral agent is a profound moral principle, but I don’t think it is even remotely realistic to expect that of real people even in the most liberal of societies. Take Rawls himself, for example. Yolanda Wilson points out that Rawls, who thinks it is possible to make policies from an original position, and who wrote in the Civil Rights era, never even mentioned race in his piece. This may be due to the notion that Rawls and his predecessors all existed in privileged social spheres that did not adequately incentivize them to care about the welfare of other groups. With this, Rawls demonstrated that even in a time of such obvious turmoil for certain groups of people, individuals who don’t suffer don’t empathize enough with those who are suffering to advocate on their behalf. It may not have been an omission of malicious intent, but it does exemplify that people aren’t concerned with issues they don’t experience first hand, and that it is difficult to indirectly experience and advocate against the plight of another group. Rawls clearly did not feel that he was obligated to use his privilege as a platform to discuss the very prevalent systems of oppression of his time. We further discussed whether or not there exists an implicit responsibility in writers and scholars to take up issues of their time. Can one talk about his/her own oppression without discussing the oppression of others? I think they can, because their own oppression is highly salient to them and the oppression of others is disconnected from their own interests. If this is true, it may derail the concept of original position / veil of ignorance entirely.
ReplyDelete1. Rawls’ main emphasis is the principle of justice as fairness. Justice should be the ultimate goal for the legitimate use of political power. To create this justice, Rawls proposes equality-based reciprocity. In order to move from abstract theory to concrete application, Rawls uses the veil of ignorance. This thought experiment states that all humans should determine the institutions of society without knowledge of their own race, class, gender, religion, or socioeconomic status. This will ensure that everyone will support the system that is fairest to all and doesn’t favor one group over another.
ReplyDelete2. I had never heard of Rawls prior to the reading, so I didn’t have any presuppositions or assumptions regarding his work. However, I did have a few assumptions regarding race. I assumed that if an idea didn’t address the question of race, it was unlikely to actually be racist. I believed that race discussions were best left for a separate context and to be discussed on their own. The more we discussed the topic though, the more I began to see that racial tensions really permeate many more areas than I ever realized. Charles Mills’ piece really opened my eyes to that. There is a clear dissonance between justice and the racist background of the United States. The fact that Rawls failed to significantly discuss race in any of his works, including A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism, shows a clear lack of regard for this important issue.
Mills’ main point is not to paint Rawls as a racist. While theorists like John Locke are actually racist in their personal actions, there is no evidence that Rawls ever acted in a racially insensitive manner. However, his arguments on justice present a sanitized version of racial oppression, which is problematic. The fact that Rawls lived in the time of the civil rights movement, a time of prevalent racial issues and discussions, means that it is almost impossible for him not to discuss race without consciously avoiding the topic.
3. One quote from Charles Mills’ dissection of Rawls really stuck with me. It states, “White racial privilege and nonwhite racial subordination are foundational to the basic structure of the United States.” At first glance, I tended to dismiss this as hyperbolic. But the more I thought about it, the more it seemed to ring true. America has spent a longer period of time maintaining institutions of racial oppression than working to try to fairly treat minorities. And even today, after the passage of the important civil rights legislation and landmark court cases that helped end segregation in the South, there are still lingering effects of institutionalized racism. The parallel to South Africa’s system of Apartheid was striking. Our country still has a long way to go to ensure racial equality.
To relate this back to Rawls, I think that the veil of ignorance would be the perfect way to try to diminish this institutionalized racism. By attempting to disregard the advantages that have come to accompany race, class, and gender, the U.S. could hopefully devise a system that is more equitable for the greatest number of people. And this would mean that no one race would be favored over another in terms of economic and especially political civil liberties.
1. In his work, “A Theory of Justice”, philosopher John Rawls begins by describing what he means by a theory of justice and how such theory functions within society. According to Rawls, a theory of justice is one that is applicable in a liberal society and may be known as “justice as fairness”. This theory establishes the framework of the legitimate uses of political power and how a civil society should operate. He notes that it is merely a thought experiment that develops from an idea of an original position, which is the equivalent of Hobbes or Locke’s state of nature. “Justice as fairness” is meant to explore “the idea that the principles of justice are agreed in an initial situation that is fair.” (11) Then, Rawls explains that to achieve such a society that is fair and just for all citizens, decisions must be made behind a veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance is a state in which people suspend their knowledge of other people’s personal characteristics, or those qualities that might be deemed “controversial”, which make them who they are. This is done in an effort to create a society that is fair for all citizens. The only information that citizens are aware of are those of moderate scarcity and general facts. Therefore, citizens are capable of being free and equal and society maintains a fairness that extends to all groups, regardless of social or economic status.
ReplyDelete2. Upon first reading Rawls, I thought that his idea of a liberal society where people make decisions behind a veil of ignorance seemed to make sense. Whenever we read the works of these philosophers, I tend to equate their ideas with how our society works today. I think that, ideally, we would love for people to suspend their own personal views and biases for the greater good of everyone else. Initially, I thought Rawls’ idea of a liberal/civil society was great because it is how we as Americans should strive to be as well. Then, we read the Charles Mills and Yolanda Wilson pieces and I found myself almost questioning Rawls’ ideas. Charles Mills notes in his work, “Rawls on Race/Race in Rawls”, that Rawls notably does not mention race in “A Theory of Justice” nor does he ever really mention race in any of his other works. To Mills, this presents an issue because unlike Hobbes and Locke who were 16th and 17th century philosophers, Rawls lived, and wrote his work, during and after the Civil Rights Movement. Therefore, for Mills, it is hard to believe that Rawls merely forgot to include race. Instead, he claims that it must have been done intentionally. While Mills never accuses Rawls of being a racist, per se, he does go to such an extreme to prove a point that, quite honestly, I question if it even needed to be addressed. Then, my position on Mills significantly altered when I learned that he was an African-American man. Although I do not believe for even a second that race should not be addressed in an open forum in our society, I do believe that we, meaning people of color, should choose our battles wisely when it comes to the touchy subject of race. After reading the extreme measures that Charles Mills went to to try to prove that Rawls purposefully left race out of his works was a little much to me. We will never truly know if Rawls did it on purpose or if it were an honest mistake and either way, I think we should just accept the work as it is. It just seems like such unnecessary work to try to prove whether someone did something intentionally or not because we will never truly achieve an answer that is true unless we ask the person directly.
3. Personally, I found the Yolanda Wilson reading, “When is An Omission A Fault? Or, Maybe Rawls Just Isn’t That Into You”, to be very interesting! I thought Wilson summarized the Mills piece quite nicely and then analyzed his work as well as Rawls’ in a clear and concise manner. Not to mention, I completely agreed with her arguments regarding both Rawls and Mills. Let me start by saying I never meant to suggest that Mills was wrong for noticing that Rawls rarely mentioned race in his works, I did think that he went to such an extreme to prove a point that really did not need to be proven. I think Wilson mentions this point nicely when she says that she is not dismissing Mills’ argument but rather, in some ways, trying to give Rawls the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, however, she does not completely let Rawls off of the hook either, which I appreciated. One can be left very puzzled in trying to firmly believe that anyone living during the Civil Rights Movement was not somewhat aware of the social and racial injustice that African-Americans endured. By not mentioning race at all, it does make people question how Rawls could have lived during such an unjust time and not comment on it at all. However, Wilson does note that Rawls also lived through the time of the Vietnam War and he did not make any connections between the war and justice either. Overall, I found Wilson’s piece to be the most compelling out of all of the Rawls-related readings because I believe she honestly expressed the rights and wrongs in each philosopher’s works in a clear manner and her argument seemed to make the most sense.
Delete1. For Rawls justice is fairness, a civil society is to be defined by justice. To Rawls, political power cannot just be legitimate it must also be just. Citizens are free and equal in Rawls’ society and society should treat all citizens fairly. If there is a difference in level of equality then that inequality must benefit everyone. Along the same line of thinking, societal aid and societal policy must look to most benefit the worst off and least advantaged of society. Rawls believes that those things that we as people are born with, things that we essentially cannot help, such as race, gender, economic status, should not determine whether or not we are favored by society. Thus Rawls conducts a thought experiment in order to eliminate the bias and prejudices of society and in the laws made by society. If we were to go back to our original position (Rawls version of the state of nature) before entering into a civil society we must take upon ourselves a veil of ignorance. We must in that original position know nothing of our race, gender, or of the place in society into which we are born. Thus in this original position behind this veil of ignorance we cannot know of our position or of any traits that would indicate or engender bias and prejudice and therefore we can make just and fair laws behind this veil. We may know in this veil that the society which we wish to serve will be made up of different people with interests in primary goods, there is knowledge of a limitation on resources as well as knowledge of the general uncontroversial facts of human life. Thus our ignorance is not true ignorance but rather ignorance of that which prejudices us against each other and encourages us to favor ourselves.
ReplyDelete2. Despite my admiration of Rawls’ thought experiment and the intriguing nature of the veil of ignorance, again he loses me in his impracticality. I know he is not attempting to suggest we in our current state can completely put aside our identities, but I then wonder the point in his experiment at all. The veil of ignorance is so impossible (we cannot forget ourselves) that its mere description and argument appear trivial. It in theory is incredibly interesting though and I believe in its applicability if we all were to begin again and approach society with such unaffected opinion. Yet, honestly even then, even if we were to erase the minds of all how would it work? Would we essentially all have to blindfold ourselves, never touch each other or ourselves. I mean, all joking aside, we are anatomically different human beings. We would know if we were female or male. To hide that much would be impossible and we would never be able to hide our race from ourselves. The only trait that could actually be hidden would be our status in society. To be honest, despite the creativity of the experiment, Rawls’ veil of ignorance is a useless thing.
3. What I found interesting in reading secondary sources that comment on Rawls, namely Mills and Wilson, is that first and foremost, despite Rawls’ being a somewhat more contemporary theorist he does not address more contemporary issues of prejudice, namely white supremacy or Jim Crow mentalities. Mills argues this as something inexcusable, a silence on the part of Rawls being an important indication of his indifference to the subject of racism. However, Wilson takes a more moderate approach, recognizing Rawls’ silences on the subject but also acknowledging the references he does make to racism and American slavery in his work. I found most interesting Mills’ rationale for Rawls’ ignorance/silence as that of being a classical theorist and that of being an ideal theorist. I saw Mills’ perspective and enjoyed the critique of that perspective in Wilson. I do not agree or disagree with either commentator but rather am simply happy to read a theorist that is somewhat relevant to my time period. For instance, when Rawls says “we” he actually means men and women. With Rawls, I am finally included in the discussion of equality and justice, a much different story for Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.
1. In Rawls “A Theory of Justice” he emphasizes the importance of equality. In fact he states that justice is fairness, social cooperation. He purposes the idea of the “veil of ignorance.” This notion puts it upon the individual to be completely ignorant of their social placements. This is attacked by Mills, saying that Rawls should have been more concise when addressing race. Rawls wrote his piece during the end of the Civil Rights movement. Furthermore, Mills says that the idea of the “veil of ignorance” is not possible because race is an innate aspect of a person and cannot be easily disregarded. Mills does not say that Rawls is racist, but simply that he should have done more with addressing racism. To this, Wilson comments on Mills critique of Rawls. She analyzes both works thoroughly. In her opinion, Rawls omission of racism is a fault, agreeing with Mills, but it is not enough to throw the entire piece into question as Mills argues. The Classical argument that Rawls gives as to why he does not address racism directly is not a valid argument in the eyes of Wilson. However, Rawls has in his right to choose what his research topic and philosophy is about and what he does or does not have to address. For Wilson, she states that although Rawls “Theory of Justice” is not the best work at analyzing race in history or in society, it is a valid philosophy in creating a just society.
ReplyDelete2. My presuppositions about this piece were few. This is my first time reading Wilson and only my second time reading Rawls. Furthermore I have not directly read enough Mills, however I am aware of his work. In my opinion, Mills is a very intelligent individual with a keen sense of arguing a point. However, I do feel that he tends to make wild accusations every now and then. Wilson picks up on this stating that a completely omission of Rawlsian philosophy because he does not sufficiently address race is absurd. Race is a very difficult subject to address in general, and therefore it is difficult to say when an omission is a fault. Wilson creates a third side. She does not fully stand by Mills, though she agrees that racism is a key issue when creating a theory of a just society. But she does not fully stand next to Rawls, even though she agrees that he did somewhat address race with his “veil of ignorance” notion and that an omission is not a detrimental fault.
3. The insight that I took away from the Wilson article is one that should be stressed when creating a theory of a just society as well as when creating a critique; think of the past and think of the big picture. Rawls does not address the past as well as he should have. To forget ones race is an almost impossible feat, and to not take into consideration what has happened in the past with racial equality and rights is also nearly impossible. However, to attack a work just because it does not address racism as in depth as you believe necessary is also a fault. One must look at the big picture. Is Rawls trying to say that racism does not exist? No. Is Rawls theory’s subject about racism in the past or current society? No. Rawls’ theory is about a just society. To him, that means forgetting your social class and focusing on what will help society to become equal and fair. We do not live in an ideal condition, which is what it takes to make Rawlsian society function. But then again, it doesn't mean that we can’t stride for that.
1) What Rawls wants to accomplish with his theory of justice is to argue about the current principles of justice and establish or reestablish principles of justice that are truly fair. In this writing, he states that he is working at a high level of abstraction, which would mean he is working in hypothetical rather than the real. Some of the ideas he presents in his writings are the original position and veil of ignorance, which are tools through which the principles of his justice can arise.
ReplyDelete2) Similar to Rousseau, I had never heard of Rawls and after reading him, I do feel like there is a hint of idealism in his theories, but from a personal standpoint it’d be a perfectly normal assumption when dealing with highly abstract topics. This of course is done simply to make things less complex because he wants to talk about his theories and not get bogged down by a mess of variables. Because he does this, it becomes debatable what sort of an impact his writings actually have on the real world and why he would write such a thing. One of the first concepts he names is called “justice is fairness”. He then goes on to talk about different conceptions of justice, which is the various different ways people regard justice. Here he talks about his aim and how it would be nice if his discussions would result in a unique set of principles, but is happy if they are able to rank the principles of justice. This leads into how people read into a system of justice and see that there are indeed inequalities where societal position becomes a factor in deciding what is just and so this progresses fairly naturally into the veil of ignorance. This reflects an idea of what justice should be and how it should be equal.
3) The biggest thing about the veil of ignorance that was pointed out was the lack of mention of race by Mills. What should be noted is that Rawls is indeed a western philosopher and is indeed influenced very heavily by the people we’ve read before, all of whom we’ve seen little mention of race in their actual philosopher (except for Locke, but that wasn’t exactly a good mention of race). We had lots of discussion on this and I myself am a big proponent of the bifurcation of personal and professional writings. However, this isn’t an accusation of racism that Mills is placing upon Rawls, but rather a severe lack of a moral obligation to talk about race when speaking about justice. I do feel that it wasn’t some sort of hate that occurred when Rawls did not mention race even though throughout history, race is one of the biggest reasons for social injustice. What this does reflect is how he thinks about race and maybe that it just wasn’t a big issue for him. Even though the Civil Rights era was a core event in this period of time as was pointed out in Wilson’s article, she notes that he didn’t talk about war justice even though the Vientnam War occurred and war justice is indeed an important issue. Is it wrong that he did not mention race? No, I don’t believe so. Is it a failing of his theory that he did not mention race? Yes, along with a lot of other things that he failed to mention, but I feel as though these could be patched up from a highly theoretical standpoint, which is where he is speaking from.
Fenchen, I agree that neglecting to mention racism was more an oversight of moral obligation than an outright declaration that Rawls must have harbored racist beliefs. I am going to look up "bifurcation" because I have no idea what that means.. thanks for the new terminology! :p
Delete1. It is the central contention of Rawls that the principles of justice essential to the structure of constitutional democracy must be characterized as political in contrast to more comprehensive moral, philosophical and religious doctrines on which agreement is not possible within the pluralism of modernity, and that the concept of justice is not its being true to an antecedent moral order, but its congruency with our self-understanding within history and traditions embedded in our public life. But Rawls emphasizes that the concept of justice as political is not a mere way of living; it embodies an overlapping consensus by specifying the fair terms of cooperation between citizens that are regarded as free and equal. This consensus encompasses the concept of primary goods: basic right and liberties, powers and prerogatives of office; income and wealth; the basis of self-respect. It also encompasses the "difference principle": in which economic inequalities are allowed so long as this improves everyone's situation including that of the least advantaged. The overlapping consensus, Rawls further specifies, is not a consensus simply in accepting a certain authority, or simply as compliance with certain institutional arrangements. "For all those who affirm the political conception start from within their own comprehensive view and draw on the religious, philosophical and moral grounds it provides."
ReplyDelete2. I had no presumptions coming into this reading as I have never been familiar with it. A strong presumption by the author is that there is a natural instinct in humans to have a justified reason for everything they do, even if they are not aware of it. It is the product of psychological reasoning. Everybody wants to be treated the same. Justice covers a broad area covered mostly by equality. “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others.”. That quote was the first principle of justice from John Rawls A Theory of Justice.
3. One insight of Rawls I found particularly interesting is that the concept of political constructivism stands in opposition to "rational intuitionism" as self evident truths about good reasons fixed by a moral order independent of our concept of the person and the social role of morality. Under a constructivist view, a moral conception can establish only a loose framework of deliberation relying on powers of reflective judgement developed by a public culture and shaped by that culture. But Rawls is not contending that principles of justice are authorized simply because of their having the sanction of particular historical traditions or social practices. The process of justification, he contends, is how a moral judgment fits in with and organizes our considered judgments in "reflective equilibrium." Justification is a mutual support of many considerations, of everything fitting together into a coherent view, where first principles and particular judgments appear on the balance to hang together reasonably well in comparison with alternative theories.
1.) Rawls bases his theory of the social contract on the principle of Justice as Fairness. To him, a just society is one that is fair to all. He breaks from other social contract theorists in how this state is arrived at, however. Instead of a grizzly state of nature which people are all too ready to exit for protection like Hobbes envisions, Rawls posits that the society is formed from any number of people in the “original position.” That is, a position in which they are completely unaware of their class, ability, intellect, and (later) race.
ReplyDelete2.) My situated knowledge entering the Rawls piece was that of the other social contract theorists we have read and the various critiques on their philosophies. I was surprised then, when I learned that Rawls did not argue for a state of nature which included bloodshed, fear, and brutishness. It was a little to wrap my head around, Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance, but once I did, I came to think of it as a pretty sound theory. And theory is where it stops. I tend to think that the states of nature espoused by the other writers we’ve read and the way in which humans enter into a society is a little more believable—simply because one cannot disassociate themselves with their body, character, and upbringing. Like one of my favorite author’s, David Foster Wallace stated, there is no experience which I have had which I have not been at the absolute center of. In other words, my entire world view is shaped by what I have seen, heard, tasted, and experienced.
3.) What stuck out to me most was our discussion of the place of race in Rawls’ theory—or rather, the lack of a place for race in Rawls’ theory. This is because I found my opinion oscillating between “Rawls is an idiot! How could he have neglected race?” to “Well, maybe he wrote it with race in mind without explicitly stating it—it can easily be broadened to include race.” These contradicting viewpoints battled it out for my opinion for a few days until I read Yolanda Wilson’s piece. Her step by step analysis of Mills was critical to my understanding of the topic. I was especially a fan of her pointing out that Mills may in fact be guilty of the same crime he rebukes Rawls for—neglecting an entire group of people: while Mills points out that Rawls neglects the question of race in his theory of justice, Wilson says calls attention to the fact that in his own work Mills neglects the work of female philosophers. I thought this critique was particularly incisive and a lesson to all who write anything persuasive: CYA. Don’t allow yourself to be accused of the crime you accuse others of. This alone did not discredit Mills argument in my eyes, but to an extent it contextualized it.
Delete1. Rawls “Theory of Justice” centers on the idea of the “veil of ignorance.” This idea challenges us to engage in a thought experiment by which we go through two perspective shifts that are the principles of justice. The veil of ignorance or original position is a state of ignorance where you do not know anything about yourself. The idea of is that under this veil, all people want equality. This is the first principle of Rawls’ theory of justice, equality All people have equal liberty. The second principle is applied when the veil of ignorance is lifted and we see our differences for the first time. This is called the difference principle. It is at this point in Rawls thought experiment that we must address people’s differences in the context of a just society and discuss distributive justice. Rawls discusses ideas about autonomy, utilitarianism, and the idea that the best justice is fairness. So differences are okay as long as they are to the benefit of all people. His point in writing this is to engage us in a thought experiment that would lead to the most just society based on his definition of justice. Rawls has received criticism due to his lack of writing about race and gender differences in his Theory of Justice.
ReplyDelete2. When I first read Rawls, I was completely confused by this “thought experiment”. I didn’t understand how you could possible forget everything about yourself. However, after looking through some supplemental information about how Rawls’ theory is actually broken down it made more sense. Rawls addresses justice in a way that hadn’t been done before. Where most political theorists had spent time spelling out the state of nature and what type of government a civil society should be run by, Rawls was specifically concerned about how justice serves citizens in the most effective and fair way in such a society. Rawls criticizes utilitarianism because it infringes on individual rights. The criticisms that Rawls has received indicate that he took racial and gender differences for granted in his writing by not addressing them at all. It also appears that Rawls did not concern himself with historical context for certain differences. For example, the fact that many racial inequities exist due to a legacy of slavery in the United States. I wonder if Rawls’ veil of ignorance eliminates history as well as situated knowledge and knowledge about oneself.
3. I was surprised about how difficult it was for the class to engage in Rawls’ thought experiment. I mentioned in class that it seemed like we were thinking about his experiment backwards. We weren’t supposed to forget everything about ourselves that we already know. The original position is a state of ignorance that we start in before we have any knowledge at all, not after. I think Rawls’ discussion about utilitarianism is rather interesting. He criticizes utilitarianism by saying that individual rights to freedom, liberty, and equality cannot be infringed upon for the good of others. I appreciated the attention he paid to ideas about justice. Rawls’ belief that citizens are autonomous in our ability to make our own decisions is a far cry from Hobbes’ monarch. I think that Rousseau and Rawls would agree on Rousseau’s ideas about natural freedom in the state of nature and Rawls’ ideas about perfect equality under the veil of ignorance. However, the two would probably have an interesting debate about the general will. Rousseau’s general will would remove autonomy from citizens in the sense that they would have to give up individual freedom for the good of all. I think that Rawls would find a problem with such an idea.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) Even tough not one of the first thinkers on social contract theory, John Rawls offers an equally enlightening view of society and social justice. Characterized by his “original position”, Rawls describes the formation of a civil society whereby individuals gather together to negotiate the ground on which society will be run. Each individual argues the position of the person they represent, but has limited information because of their position behind the ‘veil of ignorance’. Behind the veil, individuals know no social context or background—they only know of the basic facts behind social and natural sciences.
ReplyDelete2) I had never read anything by John Rawls before this series of readings and didn’t know what to respect. Because his name wasn’t part of the “Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau” trio I was use to hearing about, I didn’t know if he would share any similarities with them at all. To my surprise, Rawls too started with a discussion on the state of nature. To Rawls, though, it was a lack of rights and justice in the state of nature that would cause individuals to want to exit.
I was surprised to find that Rawls’s primary audience was likely not women and minorities. Being a justice-oriented philosopher living in the civil rights era, I have had assumed that he would take up the case for those being denied full and equitable access to justice. Compounded with the fact that neither race nor gender was originally included in his considerations of the veil of ignorance, I exited our segment on Rawls wary of his justices theories while also recognizing his right to limit the scope of his work.
3) Before reading Mill’s critique-- Race in Rawls – I felt like the adoption of the veil of ignorance was a valuable contribution to social contract theory as a whole. The ability to remove preconceived notions and socially constructed elements from the creation of a society seemed to solve a lot of problems concerning social justice. At this point, I feel it necessary to state that I appreciate Yolanda Wilson’s position that Rawls has the right to limit the scope of his work as he pleases, but still find Mills observation of Rawls’s omission of race troubling. How can race, one of the biggest sources of socially constructed injustice of our time, be omitted in a discussion of justice within the social contract? While his omission of race is not enough to justify accusations of blatant racism, it certainly lessens the impact of his work.