Rawls - Justice and Fairness in Society
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 07. 2024
- Join George and John as they discuss and debate different philosophical ideas, today they will be looking into the works of political philosopher John Rawls and his theory of a just and fair society.
Rawls offers his philosophy as a way to ensure justice and fairness is met within any society. By imagining the original position and the veil of ignorance, Rawls argues we will meet the principles of justice. Watch as Rawls’ theory is explained and assessed.
This script to this video is part of...
- The Philosophy Vibe 'Political Philosophy' eBook, available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QPZYHC
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QPZYHC
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QPZYHC
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QPZYHC
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QPZYHC
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QPZYHC
- The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics and Political Philosophy' available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H9V22R
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H9V22R
Merch: teespring.com/stores/philosop...
0:00 - Introduction
1:16 - The Original Position
2:50 - The Veil of Ignorance
6:07 - The Principles of Justice
6:36 - The Equal Liberty Principle
7:56 - The Difference Principle
12:11 - Criticisms of Rawls' Theory of Justice
#Rawls #JusticeandFairness #VeilofIgnorance #PrinciplesofJustice #Philosophy
This script to this video is part of...
- The Philosophy Vibe 'Political Philosophy' eBook, available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QPZYHC
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QPZYHC
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QPZYHC
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QPZYHC
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QPZYHC
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QPZYHC
- The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics and Political Philosophy' available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H9V22R
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H9V22R
Bruh. This channel is so underrated. Like wth is youtube algorithm doing?
:D Thanks
That's 100% true..
true
Agreed!! This has been my go to channel every week in my ethics class. I am glad I stumbled across this channel week 1. I love the argument for and the counter argument. It has helped me take a stance each week and score 10/10 in every one of my posts and discussions.
Frr
The most underrated channel on CZcams hands down 🙏
Thank you very much :)
At 12 am night , exams on mondayy...a great easy understandble content after so long , thank youu
Thank you so much for uploading this, it really made my life as a student so much easier. Its easy to grasp.
Glad we could help :)
Philosophy vibe saving my grades once again
Glad we could help!
im reading the book. and in my total honesty , altough he defines rules should be publicly comprehensible he forgot that he should also make his own book as publicly comprehensible as possible.
Whenever I find a topic not on this channel, and I have to see it from any other channel. Then it becomes a punishment for me. Love this chnnl 🌷
This is truly helpful and understandable and the part I like most is the criticism you show through the other character.
Glad you found it useful :D
as a college student struggling in a philosophy class, this really helps! even after 2 years
thank you for posting this!
Welcome, glad we could help.
This video gives a clear explanation in the most simple way. Thanks !
You're welcome, glad you found it helpful.
My favorite channel
What my professor also mentioned is that in Rawls’ Original Position the individuals have no access to probability rates. So they wouldn’t know about the probability to end up in a certain social class, etc. and also Rawls said that they wouldn’t want to take any risks so that’s why they wouldn’t gamble.
your videos explain the concepts so well!
Thank you!
Another banger, thanks for the free education
I think some of the specifics of Rawls' thought experiment are muddy. But, it is still worth considering for the simple fact that no one chooses his or his birth, so no one should be severely punished for it
Well this was definitely eye-opening. Personally, I think that no particular system can be perfect and the best off we'll ever be is by giving the ruling powers as less control over the population as possible and doing the best we can for rights and equality through social movements. Even for addressing poverty, we can, instead of implementing socialism, which, as mentioned in the video, wouldn't incentivize entrepreneurship, leave that to people who are rich to fund shelters and centers and whatnot. I know not everyone will do this but the presence of inequality would honestly be necessary if we're going to allow for equal opportunity and a just society.
Thank you for the video !
Another great video, simply setting out the views of a philosopher that I sensed was important, but which I couldn't quite grasp in the written form
Thank you, glad you found it useful.
I like how Rawls was literally like "See my plan works in a world that I made up with arbitrary characteristics that happens to fit everything I need "
so well explained. Thank you for this video.
You're welcome, thanks for watching,
Thank you, great explanation- good job .
Glad you enjoyed it!
Never fails to impress these videos are AMAZIN
Thank you!!!
Thanks a lot, this video was really interesting and useful for my revisions !
Glad it was helpful!
this went off the rails pretty spectacularly
One of my favourite channel 😊😊.
Thank you!
Underrated. Fantastic video
Much appreciated!
After studying all the sources I could find on the net this video helped me understand thoroughly impressive 10/10
Happy to help 😀
Thanks for the video guy! You rule.
You're welcome :D
This was really good. Thank you so much.
You're welcome, glad you enjoyed.
This is just marvelous.
Thank you :D
Thank you so much, this video is so helpful!!
You're welcome, glad it was helpful.
This is high quality material💪👍
Thank you!
Fantastic content, man!
Thank you, glad you enjoyed.
This is my favorite youtube channel! Amazing video guys!
I'm curious to know how Rawls argued to maintain his ideas in line with his 'equal liberty principle' because I always imagine that to achieve this thought about justice you need to use certain means to achieve the ends, and in my opinion, inevitably will fall in contradiction with liberty principles.
However, you guys did a great job! Thank you for the video!
Thank you Pedro, glad you enjoyed. And great point.
Love your videos
Thank you!
All of our problems begin with unfairness
Can you provide notes on justice and fairness please
Rawls theory Well explained. Yet the liberty policts could only be possible when there exists less or null distinction and occurance of 'rich' 'poor' entities successfully implemented in every major/minority aspects.
Prepared me for my exam ! Good video !
Glad it helped. Good luck in the exam.
One of my criticisms of this theory is that some may not only lack the same "Primary Goods" presented, but they may also have other primary goods. As for myself, one of my "primary goods" may be (The Bible's definition of) Righteousness. The Original Position relies on the Veil of ignorance, and the Viel of Ignorance relies on ridding our definitions of good and bad whilst still retaining some sort of rationally values. These values can change and vary, thus, the Original position wouldn't work.
A criticism against this however may be that the viel of ignorance simply covers all but the presented primary goods for no particular reason.
Great vid!
Excellent video, covered Rawls' theory pretty well. Waiting eagerly now for you guys to cover Entitlement Theory of Justice given by Nozick.
Glad you enjoyed the video. And thank you for the recommendation we are looking into this.
Now I´ve got honest critique on Rawls´ Theory. I would argue, that because behind the vail of ignorance we are ignorant and have no predispositions and understanding of our own individual culture, we are, all that are there, one single Person. For we are equal in everything, we have nothing, that makes us different. So, in fact behind this veil one person could represent us all and there would be nothing to argue about. You see, there is no need to argue different approaches to society when we are all the same behind the veil and everything we conclude is predetermined. This would mean, that Rawls passively assumed, that there had to be one true and good form of government, which we must all apply to this just and fair society. In conclusion, he missed a major flaw in his theory. Please correct me, if I am wrong.
(I apologize for any grammatical and or linguistic error. Englisch is not my first language)
super helpful thankyou
You're welcome :)
Good ❤
Love u man from Nepal 🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵
Yes, "one of the most influential works on modern politics" that none of the candidates standing at my last local election had even heard of. They can all spout the party line but have no idea of the thinking behind it. If only we could come up with theories that actually work in practice, we would be able to make progress rather than just talk about it. This is such a key topic.
Rawls' theory has been very influential if one looks at modern constitutions across the world. For example, the constitution of South Africa and subsequent constitutions designed after it.
Yes I agree, rather like the bible has been very influential if one looks at constitutions and law making across the world. My point is that it doesn't seem to have any influence of note upon the behaviour of the average politician.@@gugulethudube2249
yes, I understand
great video
Thank you.
12:34 - The stakes don't even have to be as high as slavery/servitude. Any gamble where the upper majority would benefit a little at the (small) expense of the bottom minority would cast doubt on Rawls' theory (e.g. the bottom 20% of society being taxed an extra $1 so the top 80% can all have an extra 25¢).
Does Rawls have a good reason to object to even minor gambles like this?
Ok so this makes sense if you are still allowing for certain assumptions being considered true. I would argue the assumption that competition is not human nature and is in contradiction to all of nature as well. Life cooperates and the source of human suffering is that we live a lifestyle in a culture that forces competition and divides people causing social isolation and the degradation of society.
We build all our civilizations on that assumption and that's why they keep falling.
Explain Amartya Sen views as well
Could AI create the original position for society?
Very intriguing way of thinking 🤔. But the problem is that people are stupid sometimes.
You gonna do a video on robert nozick.
Yes we will look into this. Are there any specific topics of his you would like to see covered?
@@PhilosophyVibe I'd be interested to see your explanation (and especially criticism) of Nozick's political philosophy (in *Anarchy, State, and Utopia*); specifically, how it criticises & differs to Rawls.
Even within ASAU, Nozick's tangents are diverse (his most well-known contributions to philosophy, the Utility Monster and the Experience Machine, are more about utilitarianism than political philosophy).
But I think some good topics to focus on are:
- his case for the minimalist state (as opposed to anarchy, or the welfare state), which is the main point of ASAU and his disagreement with Rawls
- his Entitlement Theory of Justice
- the arguments he uses to support it (e.g. Wilt Chamberlain argument)
- maybe some of his other less-talked-about-but-intriguing political thought experiments (e.g. Tale of the Slave, Demoktesis).
But ofc it's up to you to focus on what you think is most worthwhile to discuss. The book touches on so many different topics that it's impossible to do all of them justice.
But if it's anywhere near as good a summary as this video on Rawls was, I'll be pleased regardless.
The problem with the guy on the right argument is the original position is still a gamble so it is kinda smart to try to gamble on chart 2 but I really did the guy on the right argument that I would side with him but I can understandably someone would choose chart 2
Not everyone is a gambler, I mean I'd take the gamble sure...but I was born in the lower grade.
all political philosophies have to start with some foundational presuppositions, a lot of these videos immediately challenge against the presuppositions so I find its kinda silly.
please invest in a better mic
That guy on the left needs a sip of water goddayum
I think Mr. Raws is fair.
am i the only one that is like ....... why would you need to be concerned about "the least advantaged" if you can just distribute resources properly like .... am i not getting this?
What do you mean? I think Rawls meant that you have to focus on the least advantaged people and help them stay afloat.
Nozick plz.
Will look into this, thanks.
Awesome vid but man Rawl's concept of gambling = irrationality is egregious. Even chess AIs, which are effectively all-knowing in their field, make calculated risks. Would he consider one of the least emotional and most rule-based machines of humanity irrational?
Hahahaha bro i just thought of something hilarious for your channel. It would be hilarious if you throw in some comedy where the characters get offended and beat each other up and then it goes to like a retake shot and they have bruises all over their face and they continue the debate. Just sharing ideas to spice things up
🤣 definitely something to consider.
Iha nebe dg ita iha ba, rawls fiar katak ita hare ba elemento sira iha ita nia sociedade, no ita sei hare injustica. Sei iha buat barak mk la justo. Hnsan: tratamento ba ema la hnsan, hare ema la hnsan, no ema ou grupo balu halao exercicio do poder no controlo ba ema seluk nbe kik liu. Ne hnsan caso/prblma bot ida iha historia humanidade nian, quanto mais iha passado. Tamba nee hau fiar laiha ema ida mak bele dhn nia moris iha sociedade ida completamente justo no igual, equitativo .
I agree with Rawls to some extent but my objection is that the principle of the original position and the veil of ignorance is not pragmatic since we can not use it in real life. How can we get everyone to be oblivious about this just and fair way of negotiation? I think it is not possible.
How does it make sense that they prioritize the lowest class, this is just hedging your bets but there can be another version where there is more net wealth but the lowest class is worse off. I think it makes more sense to take the earnings of each class times the probability of getting in each class then add all of them together and which ever one has the highest number has the most overall wealth nomatter the distribution, this also is completely ignoring class mobility wouldn't the best thing for lower classes be to make as many opportunities and the best chance as possible for classes to reach higher classes, with the added benefit of increasing overall wealth as much as possible.
Ugh if it wasn’t for capitalism, you’d be watching your clothes down by the river and sending courier pigeons to talk to your family members.