In your interpretation of this thought experiment, you get to choose to be Christian, and a professor, PHD. Rawls said you have no choice into which class, race, or religion you get birthed into, and that should be the a model for public policy. You don't get to choose where resources are gathered from or where they are distributed. In this thought experiment, all you have is luck. If choice in birth was a thing, we would all choose wealth as opposed to starvation, oppression, and all that. You build into your argument assumptions of wealth and prosperity
Exactly. I say it all the time: everything comes down to luck. But he does make a good point that resources are not going to just fall from the sky... But we should still work to make life better for people that are suffering.
1. Rawls thought experiment does take into account altruism. It simply asks “what society would you want to be born into”, while many will make that decision based on ego, it does not exclude altruism 2. Your hypothetical about the two patients is very bizarre. The decision to decide whether one lives or dies based on your judgement of their lifestyle is not only contradictory to medical ethics, but also your own Christian ethics. “Judge not lest ye be judged”, “I have come not to call the righteous, but the sinners”. It also is irrelevant to Rawls’ theory 3. Of course it is not a real life scenario, that is the source of the questions objectivity.
So right! Its amazing isn't it? But so many think like him who are "Christian." They judge who is good enough. Does this supposed teacher know if the man who drinks was so injured emotionally and physically that alcohol took his mind? Does he even know a mind, because what he professes is totally without a mind or heart, but because he knows his bible, he therefor is wise. WRONG. Now you know what is taught to Christians, principles like this, and now you can see why we are so messed up in the country and why they vote the way that they do........
But are Christians not pious in order for god to love them - or something to that effect? If so, then it could be thought of as a form of ethical egoism on their part - an effort to achieve love. I think that is a difficult problem to solve for any religious person who thinks that there is causality between his actions and say his admittance to heaven for instance or even just the conscientiously "knowledge" that god is watching him/her. I'm not trying to turn this into an atheistic attack on Christianity, but I can't think of a Christian answer myself (as an atheist). Thanks for the video in any case. :)
It appears that this channel has been abandoned. I agree with the presence of an egoist bias (though I feel the vast majority of people have this bias, so no need to design based on exception over rule), but I'd like to hear how Jeremy would alter the thought experiment. but I don't see how the 'Saint" theory would yield materially different results in the 'original position'. I don't buy Nozick's perspective or the defence thereof with an awkward strawman argument, having the hospital take a 'god' role. Speaking of strawmen, the ahistorical injection is another. Rawls is not asking to ignore history; he merely asks that when you consider a just society, consider how it 'should' (normatively) be if you were to have to enter it through a sort of lottery. It is a thought experiment. Separately, Neill is taking a position that a person can achieve or own something in the first place and is somehow entitled to it, as if my fantastical decree.
With regards to Rawl's assumption that we are self-interested, I argue it still stands against scrutiny. Everything we do does not involve any sense of selfishness seems impossible if one delves further into the human psyche. For example, I may wish to help others because I do not like the feeling of seeing others suffer, but in reality I wish to extermination the 'bad feeling' of seeing suffering. Furthermore, there are numerous noble acts of selflessness that, again, do not show selflessness if you look closely. One may want to help people via charity but that could only be done because the act of helping those in need provides some benefit. One only has to observe modern day science and see how we act insofar that we gain something from a particular act (dopamine etc). Just think philosophically, how can I ever commit to an act that has no effect on my feelings? Of course the answer is I cannot, we should instead be aware of what the motive behind our selfishness is and more importantly whether there are better ways to be selfish.
Selflessness either does not exist or it is simply selfishness through the filter of empathy. No one ever chooses to do anything they don't want to do. That might sound like an absurd claim to some but IMO it's ostensibly impossible to choose to do a thing you don't want to do. Anytime anyone thinks they are doing something they don't want to be doing, what they are really saying is they are doing something they don't want to have to do. There are plenty of things I do that I don't want to have to do, but I recognize that the consequences of not doing whatever it is are more negative than the consequences of doing it. I may not want to travel long distances to go a family event I know I won't enjoy attending, but my desire to not have my mother be upset by my absence outways my desire to not go. By making the choice to attend the event, I am choosing to do what I want to do considering my limited options. Of course I wish I had an alternative choice but I'm still making the choice I want to make.
slaves did not make the choice to be a slave... so your argument that iam still making a choice i want to make or no one ever chooses to do anything, they do not want to do does not make sense at all..... also your definition on selflessness is really inhuman.. i think this is what a political philosopher idea makes to society .. regards..
huh??? Hospital administrator.....YOu are going to judge who gets a kidney because he doesn't live like you think they should? WOW, Jesus who? Rawls doesn't judge people, you do...
You are why we have so many problems in society, Mr. Christian who judges......let he without sin cast the first stone....Did Jesus ask those he preached to if they were worthy to eat, drink, partake? WOW, this is really sickening.
In your interpretation of this thought experiment, you get to choose to be Christian, and a professor, PHD. Rawls said you have no choice into which class, race, or religion you get birthed into, and that should be the a model for public policy. You don't get to choose where resources are gathered from or where they are distributed. In this thought experiment, all you have is luck. If choice in birth was a thing, we would all choose wealth as opposed to starvation, oppression, and all that. You build into your argument assumptions of wealth and prosperity
you have no idea how much you helped me, thanks
Exactly. I say it all the time: everything comes down to luck. But he does make a good point that resources are not going to just fall from the sky... But we should still work to make life better for people that are suffering.
1. Rawls thought experiment does take into account altruism. It simply asks “what society would you want to be born into”, while many will make that decision based on ego, it does not exclude altruism
2. Your hypothetical about the two patients is very bizarre. The decision to decide whether one lives or dies based on your judgement of their lifestyle is not only contradictory to medical ethics, but also your own Christian ethics. “Judge not lest ye be judged”, “I have come not to call the righteous, but the sinners”. It also is irrelevant to Rawls’ theory
3. Of course it is not a real life scenario, that is the source of the questions objectivity.
So right! Its amazing isn't it? But so many think like him who are "Christian." They judge who is good enough. Does this supposed teacher know if the man who drinks was so injured emotionally and physically that alcohol took his mind? Does he even know a mind, because what he professes is totally without a mind or heart, but because he knows his bible, he therefor is wise. WRONG. Now you know what is taught to Christians, principles like this, and now you can see why we are so messed up in the country and why they vote the way that they do........
We are Devo.
What are the criticism of John Rawls
But are Christians not pious in order for god to love them - or something to that effect? If so, then it could be thought of as a form of ethical egoism on their part - an effort to achieve love. I think that is a difficult problem to solve for any religious person who thinks that there is causality between his actions and say his admittance to heaven for instance or even just the conscientiously "knowledge" that god is watching him/her. I'm not trying to turn this into an atheistic attack on Christianity, but I can't think of a Christian answer myself (as an atheist). Thanks for the video in any case. :)
It appears that this channel has been abandoned. I agree with the presence of an egoist bias (though I feel the vast majority of people have this bias, so no need to design based on exception over rule), but I'd like to hear how Jeremy would alter the thought experiment. but I don't see how the 'Saint" theory would yield materially different results in the 'original position'.
I don't buy Nozick's perspective or the defence thereof with an awkward strawman argument, having the hospital take a 'god' role.
Speaking of strawmen, the ahistorical injection is another. Rawls is not asking to ignore history; he merely asks that when you consider a just society, consider how it 'should' (normatively) be if you were to have to enter it through a sort of lottery. It is a thought experiment.
Separately, Neill is taking a position that a person can achieve or own something in the first place and is somehow entitled to it, as if my fantastical decree.
Great criticisms, especially on Rawls' assumption of human nature as egoistic and individualistic. Thank you
With regards to Rawl's assumption that we are self-interested, I argue it still stands against scrutiny. Everything we do does not involve any sense of selfishness seems impossible if one delves further into the human psyche. For example, I may wish to help others because I do not like the feeling of seeing others suffer, but in reality I wish to extermination the 'bad feeling' of seeing suffering. Furthermore, there are numerous noble acts of selflessness that, again, do not show selflessness if you look closely. One may want to help people via charity but that could only be done because the act of helping those in need provides some benefit. One only has to observe modern day science and see how we act insofar that we gain something from a particular act (dopamine etc). Just think philosophically, how can I ever commit to an act that has no effect on my feelings? Of course the answer is I cannot, we should instead be aware of what the motive behind our selfishness is and more importantly whether there are better ways to be selfish.
Selflessness either does not exist or it is simply selfishness through the filter of empathy. No one ever chooses to do anything they don't want to do. That might sound like an absurd claim to some but IMO it's ostensibly impossible to choose to do a thing you don't want to do. Anytime anyone thinks they are doing something they don't want to be doing, what they are really saying is they are doing something they don't want to have to do. There are plenty of things I do that I don't want to have to do, but I recognize that the consequences of not doing whatever it is are more negative than the consequences of doing it. I may not want to travel long distances to go a family event I know I won't enjoy attending, but my desire to not have my mother be upset by my absence outways my desire to not go. By making the choice to attend the event, I am choosing to do what I want to do considering my limited options. Of course I wish I had an alternative choice but I'm still making the choice I want to make.
slaves did not make the choice to be a slave... so your argument that iam still making a choice i want to make or no one ever chooses to do anything, they do not want to do does not make sense at all..... also your definition on selflessness is really inhuman.. i think this is what a political philosopher idea makes to society .. regards..
huh??? Hospital administrator.....YOu are going to judge who gets a kidney because he doesn't live like you think they should? WOW, Jesus who? Rawls doesn't judge people, you do...
You are why we have so many problems in society, Mr. Christian who judges......let he without sin cast the first stone....Did Jesus ask those he preached to if they were worthy to eat, drink, partake? WOW, this is really sickening.