John Rawls, A Theory of Justice | Two Principles of Justice | Philosophy Core Concepts
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 07. 2024
- Get Rawl's A Theory of Justice - amzn.to/3cb3Vo0
Support my work here - / sadler
or Buy Me A Coffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM
Philosophy tutorials - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
Take classes with me - reasonio.teachable.com/
This is a video in my new Core Concepts series -- designed to provide students and lifelong learners a brief discussion focused on one main concept from a classic philosophical text and thinker.
This Core Concept video focuses on John Rawls' major work of political theory and ethics, A Theory of Justice, and discusses the two main principles of justice that he thinks rational agents in an initial condition, deciding behind a veil of ignorance, will settle upon.
If you'd like to support my work producing videos like this, become a Patreon supporter! Here's the link to find out more - including the rewards I offer backers: / sadler
You can also make a direct contribution to help fund my ongoing educational projects, by clicking here: www.paypal.me/ReasonIO
If you're interested in philosophy tutorial sessions with me, click here: reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
You can get a copy of John Rawls' book, A Theory of Justice here - amzn.to/3cb3Vo0
My videos are used by students, lifelong learners, other professors, and professionals to learn more about topics, texts, and thinkers in philosophy, religious studies, literature, social-political theory, critical thinking, and communications. These include college and university classes, British A-levels preparation, and Indian civil service (IAS) examination preparation
(Amazon links are associate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases)
#JohnRawls #justice #ethics
I'm an almost graduate in philosophy and this is probably the best quick summary of Rawls I've seen so far. Obviously as we all know philosophy can't be boiled down to a few minutes, but you certainly explain yourself very well!
Thanks!
This is amazing! Thank you for explaining his two principles so clearly!
You're welcome!
Great. I was struggling with my first reading of Rawls, but this talk has explained some key concepts and has made things a lot clearer
Glad to read it
This has been extremely helpful, thanks so much!
Glad to read it
So nicely explained sir 😊 🙏🙏 thank you 😊
Thank you for the concise explanation.
You're welcome!
I like explanations like this. Thank you and Dr. RAWLS.
You’re welcome
sending thanks and appreciation from UK.
You'e welcome!
Thank you so much for the videos.
You're welcome!
Very helpful thank you.
You’re welcome
Great insights. However, i would argue that Rawl's theory is challenging in practice. I mean, no one, literally no one would ignore their own biased view of advantage. And further implications down the line of implementing his concept seems to create more inequality than equality.
Everything worth thinking about is challenging in practice.
And no
Love it thank you
You're welcome!
Thank you for the simple explanation of the principles of Rawls' theory of justice. However, my question relates to what are the three main theories of justice according to Rawls? Are these the same as the principles stated earlier?
czcams.com/video/xgf2jztjaF4/video.html
Really helpful
Glad to read it
Where can we find what rawls views were on marx?
Reading his texts would be a start, wouldn't it?
Based
Rawls, is saying it is good if the stars or people who need it gain more wealth, therefore a redistribution of wealth would cause equality and is justified. Because these people that would earn more, like a doctor or a tech artisan would essentially do better for more people.
But the "way" he phrases it, is weird. It becomes ambiguous, he is almost saying let us have inequality so equality comes, but that's not what it is. Not at all!!! It is however, now read this literally, "we want a redistribution of wealth that causes equality". Which is not the same as having, "we want inequality that causes equality". The first keeps the inequality and kind of muffles it away as being a force for equality. The other is trying to deliberately reach equality by being responsible in distributing assets and resources to those who can do more with it and have big returns for all.
The emphasis should be very different.
No idea what you’re trying to say. Rewrite or delete
@@GregoryBSadler and now?
You've misread him. Give the text another more attentive read
@@GregoryBSadler I shall do that.