Dr. Darren Staloff, John Rawl's A Theory of Justice
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 05. 2022
- You can find A Theory of Justice here amzn.to/3c0aLBk
This is the official CZcams channel of Dr. Michael Sugrue.
Please consider subscribing to be notified of future videos, as we upload Dr. Sugrue's vast archive of lectures.
Dr. Michael Sugrue earned his BA at the University of Chicago and PhD at Columbia University.
I turn to this channel to escape the idiocracy.
so around 2003, a friend was introducing me to the West Wing, and I’m watching the show and suddenly one of the characters starts talking about the veil of ignorance, and I said oh my God, they’re discussing John Rawls in an episode of West Wing! And I only knew it because I heard this lecture around 1993 or so.
You have given me a refreshed perspective towards life and it's symptoms. I'm making up in education through you what I could not in my 20s. Thank you 🙏
Dear Darren Staloff, become young again along with your fellow colleague Mike Sugrue. You were lovely back in the mid 90s. Come back to the great courses for yet another brill humdinger. Such wonderful presentations. I even like the way you walk_let alone talk!
Jesus, these videos are coming think and fast. I love it !! 👍
I am convinced that my student phase would have been much of an easier ride if I had access to these brilliant lecturers. Surely, I am still enjoying, or rather even appreciating these lectures more than ever. Thank you Mr. Sugrue.
Thank you for sharing this lecture. I just wish Prof Staloff had spent more time elaborating on the problems with Rawls' theory.
bruh I had my philosophy final on social justice legit yesterday and totally bugged out, wish you would've uploaded this 2 days earlier king whyyyyy
A modern extension of the golden rule. Instead of only treating others as you would have them treat you; also support a system of government as if you might occupy the lowest rank.
🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽👏🏽
As a professor myself I admire the clarity in which dr. Staloff navigates this often confusing subject
I use this theory in many discussions to tease out people's ideals, it is also an antidote to nihilism for many people as they will usually design a world that is better in some way they care about.
Throwback to The Dragon Prince for distilling basically this whole theory into the dialogue of a flashback.
Staloff and Sugrue against the world
That outfit misses its ponytail…
Love you Staloff!
dude is dressed well. good complimentary colours, combining different patterns and making it work, different use of textures.
What year is this class from?…
Add that cardigan to the underrated list!
And Rawls to the overrated category
Fantastic lecture, but, am I the only one who finds this man quite handsome?
Rawls and Habermas maybe wouldn't agree in many things, but they were basically searching for the same answers, and came with equally impressive theories that were not still fully explored, and maybe will never be. Just like the theories of those three crazy old guys that invented science back in the rockstar years of philosophy called Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
Good book
I don't think the veil of ignorance extends to misapplying apostrophes: it's "John Rawls' [or John Rawls's] A Theory of Justice. ;)
Can’t be the beloved Dr. Staloff we know and love… this guy is missing about 3 ft of hair.
I always thought the biggest issue with Rawl's theory of justice is that you lose any justification to act in a speciesist way.
In effect, you always have to do everything in your power to avoid exploiting non-human animals, because you don't know if you'll be born as a human under the veil of ignorance.
You'll indirectly arrive at the same conclusion that Indian Jainist had when they concluded from their metaphysical belief of reincarnation, that they were and might return to be other forms of life, so they should avoid killing that life when they can, which explains why their diet often avoids animal foods and even some root plants in lieu of mostly or just fruits.
I don’t want to sound as though I have any extensive expertise in either Rawls or Jainism, but allow me to posit a possible objection: early on, Dr. Staloff mentioned that Rawl’s theory included “valid inequality” and “invalid inequality”. Nature is prima facie unequal, yet this state of inequality must be valid (otherwise nature is irrational and we condemn lions eating gazelles); thus, organisms harming other organisms is not always “exploitation”, but may be necessary for their survival. This can be further distinguished from humanity’s true intentional exploitation, including inflicting suffering, physical abuse of life (human or otherwise) or seeking the complete destruction of life. This is immoral. Therefore in pursuing justice for the ecosystem writ large, eating animals/plants is not always exploitative (sans hyper-capitalist meat/deforestation industries, intending profit, not survival of themselves). The difference for humanity must be our capacity to intend rational justice over a “state of nature”.
@@gaberazalas7333 correct me if I misunderstood you, but are you saying (from what you can tell) Rawl’s would carve exceptions for specicism for the purposes of survival?
That makes sense if true, though I wonder if inter-human harm can also be justified in this same way. Like if food is really scarce, and cannibalism is needed to survive, do we then consider the murder of any innocent person for food to be justified to stave off hunger justifiable under Rawl’s theory?
Maybe Rawl’s might pick certain people to die over others, like the elderly before the children, but I always got the impression that Rawl’s wanted to avoid this kind of vulgar utilitarianism.
@@gaberazalas7333 👏🏻
Rawls is actually explicit that he doubts his theory can be extended to cover non-human animals, though he does think that this doesn’t show that we don’t have non-justice based duties to animals. He thinks that in order to be bound by the theory, you need to have the ability to form, revise and pursue a life plan as well as a capacity for a sense of justice to the degree necessary for social cooperation. Notoriously, this also seems to exclude the severely cognitively disabled - which, again, Rawls seems to more or less explicitly accept.
The biggest issue with Rawl’s theory of justice is the theory itself
look at that swag he got on
Drip
Giraffe Certified classic
Well on the final point, he doesn’t even know what centuries Michaelangelo, Donatello, and da Vinci did their work. So I don’t think he can use their work as an example as the great benefit that would change the balance of scales in the question of political philosophy.
This was a complex video.
Comment.
comment comment
@@jamesclarke2789 Hehe :)
Just doing my bit for the algorithm.
I want to like rawls but i feel that his theory of justice is so far form the reality of the human condition that it becomes completely useless. Thought experiments are important to prove practical points, but Rawls just makes this thought experiment based on the presuppositions that he already had: equality is good, man is an ends and not a means, justice is good. But he never adresses why this is the case.
It’s more useful if you synthesize it along with other philosophers. For example, using Rawls as a modern extrapolation of Plato’s Republic, which does discuss why justice is important and all of these things, or with Cant’s categorical imperative to flesh out a cohesive view of a religious society not governed by the church, or what have you
But you can be rational and eviI, no? I doubt that social justice will be heavy on your mind if you're in this camp. (This lecture, along with Rawls' theory, sounds a bit too like pedantic erudition, IMHO.)
usually liove Staloff, but his endorsement of Rawls, who helped ruin American justice is VERY disappointing. Comparing Rawls' heuristics with Kant's deep reasoning shows bad judgement.
What are your reasonings behind this statement?
Rawl's philosophy doesn't happen in the real world.
I think his best students came to this conclusion.
My former professor would pound the desk in favor of Rawls, and I never became convinced of the efficacy of this so called Theory of Justice.
I still can't stand social justice discourse. As Dr. Staloff said at the beginning, it's a discourse not based in truth. The entire philosophy is based on subjective conceptions of "justice" where the word "justice" literally substitutes for the word truth.
The Rawlsian approach is about tilting the playing field while proclaiming to be leveling it. It sickens me.
What would a "truth" based "approach" look like, then?
@@luismartins9205 I would say a good philosophy is one that at least searches for truth. Rawls just states "truth = justice" on page one, and then never revisits the claim.
Not a big fan of Rawls, but your argument is the same that Nietzsche used against Socrates. Socrates basically built his entire philosophical knowledge upon the concept that "making good to others is rational, and making evil things is irrational". Nietzsche then said Socrates can't proof doing good to others is really that good, or is more like an "authoritarian" apropriation of the other's nature. I'm fine with his critic. But, and here is the point I'm going to critizise you: If you are pointing their errors, you need to sustain your point of view showing us how we should rationalize those questions instead. So, instead of just saying Rawls is wrong, you need to proof that there's a better concept than "justice = truth" or whatever. That doesn't mean that Rawls views are absolute, or Socrates. They are just proposing ideas and theories. But, differently than in "natural sciences", i.e., logic, phyisics, etc., it's not the one who makes the claim who has to "proof" it. Much because the concept of "scientific proof" is very problematic in "human sciences". See the Gadamer lecture and you'll understand. You can't verify in a lab if social justice exists. So, in "human sciences", it's the critic's burden to proof that the original theory is wrong, by offering a better alternative to it. Since you didn't offer any alternative, your critic is vain and pointless. It's easy to critizise without offering a real better alternative. Just like Nietzsche did.
@@luksjfernandes I do not believe that I need to assert an entirely different philosophy in order to criticize one Rawlsian point of contention. The idea of the Rawlsian “level playing field” is in fact a tilted playing field; one that tilts in favor of the weaker players. I disagree that this move should be called “leveling the playing field,” as does the Rawlsian discourse. It’s a bad first principle.
It should literally be thought of as tilting or adjusting the playing field; or UN-leveling the playing field, as the field is inherently level.
@@burnlikeneon4044 No, you don't need to do it in order to critize it. But you need better arguments, and as I said, your talk is cheap, since you can't offer a better starting point than "rationality = being good". If taking the point of the less advantaged ones is being "weak" to you, I can't stress enough how nietzschean and not original you are. What would be a good first principe? Taking the "most advantaged" as the measure for ethical decisions? Aka the law of the strongest. They gave it a try for the last 2500 years to say a little. Well, it created the mess we are seeing today and that most intelectuals are trying to solve. Yes, Rawls vision has its problems, but your critic is the only weak thing here. You can't understand that, first: the field is already tilted to the "stronger" players. So Rawls theory would compensate for that, until a certain point. He's trying to offer a solution for social and economical injustices. Inherently leveled? Maybe you're not familiar with the concept of heritage and political influence. Also, maybe you're not familiar with the concept of "isonomy", but that's similar to what Rawls is talking about. Being in the position of the "less advantaged" means abstracting for oneself, just like Hegel described as one of the most complex and advanced human skills, and being capable of putting yourself in a position that let you understand if not universal at least generally acceptable ethical principles. Which is the holy grail of modern civility. Justifying good without God. So, bringing to reality, if you were a white guy during Apartheid, if you could really put yourself in the less advantaged position, you would easily realize the laws were injust, and made to a only few. IF, and only IF you could really be that rational. Is it perfect? No. But we accept better options, if you can give us. Habermas has given us. Gadamer also. You? Just a bunch of Ayn Rand or utilitarian nosense. I mean, you are free to think anything dude, but you should just really try to understand the tradition from where those guys are coming from and the questions they are trying to solve. This is no rocket science, it's way harder. Or maybe you should just keep worshiping Francis Bacon...
This is evil