Conservative principle(s) of Justice. Are there any?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not really. Arguing against the Kantian principle is not arguing against Rawls. A separate argument is required. Your prof seems like a dime store sceptic to me

He was arguing against Rawls' conducting of the experiment and 'rigging' the result to his conclusion. Treating people as ends in themselves doesn't mean the veil of ignorance. So the veil is not the Kantian principle, but Rawls' interpretation of the Kantian principle.

Dime store skeptic, he's not. If you don't buy the veil (I for one, do not), then you won't buy his Theory of Justice.

[Agathon]

He was arguing against Rawls' conducting of the experiment and 'rigging' the result to his conclusion. Treating people as ends in themselves doesn't mean the veil of ignorance.

It means something like it. The idea is that you put yourself in anyone's shoes. The idea that you must treat everyone as an end and not a means is just this. Treating someone as an end in themselves requires seeing the world from their perspective. Of course this applies to everyone, so we end up with putting ourselves in everyone's shoes. That is what the veil of ignorance is for. Same goes for Ronald Dworkin's auction experiment.

WTF is up with your prof. They should fire him.

I'm the Plato's metaphysics specialist and even I know this.

[Whaleboy]

I haven't read this thread but I would suppose discussions of justice would depend on definitions of justice. You have Plato's which I like, then you have some emotive sense of revenge, then Kants effort for universal justice. To me, justice is just what happens when subjective free will and it's concurrent responsibility is satisfied, so it eliminates sociological or vengeful notions of sentence, it merely establishes who is responsible. Say that someone incites another to kill, does the former have any responsibility for the murder? Assuming the latter had free will, then no. But hey, it's late and I need to re-read stuff to be able to comment properly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It means something like it. The idea is that you put yourself in anyone's shoes. The idea that you must treat everyone as an end and not a means is just this. Treating someone as an end in themselves requires seeing the world from their perspective. Of course this applies to everyone, so we end up with putting ourselves in everyone's shoes. That is what the veil of ignorance is for.

Simply because you are seeing the world from someone else's perspective does not mean that your perspective and interests do not exist anymore. In fact, the act of viewing something from someone else's perspective will be colored by your own perspective and interests, since it is not physically possible to be in the other person's mind.

Also someone else's perspective is informed from his background, as is yours. In order to see everyone's perspective you must know the background which create it.

Saying that we will ignore everyone's background (in the veil of ignorance) is defeating seeing the world from other people's perspective.

I'm just a law student and even I know this .

And I don't think they'll fire the prof, seeing how he's a nationally known expert on legal writing and jurisprudence.

[Agathon]

I haven't read this thread but I would suppose discussions of justice would depend on definitions of justice. You have Plato's which I like, then you have some emotive sense of revenge, then Kants effort for universal justice. To me, justice is just what happens when subjective free will and it's concurrent responsibility is satisfied, so it eliminates sociological or vengeful notions of sentence, it merely establishes who is responsible. Say that someone incites another to kill, does the former have any responsibility for the murder? Assuming the latter had free will, then no. But hey, it's late and I need to re-read stuff to be able to comment properly.

Say wha?

[Whaleboy]

You are responsible for your actions, lots of verbosity about subjectivity of free will, justice is the recognition of responsibility for given act, justice is the determination of the subjective responsibility of given action. Determinism holds in free will so you cannot claim said act to be someone's "fault" since in that context it was inevitable that it was going to occur, to say "fault" and thus rectification surely requires an objective frame of reference, none exists so relativism holds.... justice cannot therefore include punishment.

[Whaleboy]

Oh bollocks, I've just justified vigilantism

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
How so?

The point of a theory of justice is to reason from examples that people accept to first principles and then revise your examples from that. God is not a first principle that most people are going to accept, so it's useless.

That's your problem. God certainly is a first principle that most people are going to accept. That's plainly obvious.

[Agathon]

Simply because you are seeing the world from someone else's perspective does not mean that your perspective and interests do not exist anymore.

No, but you can ignore them. Saying you can't is one thing. I can.

In fact, the act of viewing something from someone else's perspective will be colored by your own perspective and interests, since it is not physically possible to be in the other person's mind.

This is relativist bunk. I can simply discount my own interests, and have done.

Also someone else's perspective is informed from his background, as is yours. In order to see everyone's perspective you must know the background which create it.

Not really. You just need to listen to them. You can quibble about details, but knowing what other people want is pretty simple, you ask them. This guy's point is just amateur psychological relativism.

Saying that we will ignore everyone's background (in the veil of ignorance) is defeating seeing the world from other people's perspective.

No. That's a misunderstanding of Rawls. We ignore our own effectively means we universalize our own. That means thinking of the consequences both for ourselves and everyone else, from everyone's point of view.

He definitely doesn't say that we ignore everyone's interests, rather we treat them as having no particular owner, we universalize them. In other words, what would be the consequences for everyone, if everyone did that.

We certainly don't ignore religious interests, since religious freedoms IIRC are one of the specific things that Rawls is interested in protecting.

[Whaleboy]

This is relativist bunk. I can simply discount my own interests, and have done.

True, I think he's tryign to claim that, for example, a judge is as subjective as the defendant. However, that ignores context (yes I know but it does work dammit) whereby in that context a judge is independent but holds certain wildcards that cause him to judge (i.e. the law or a given moral philosophy).

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, but you can ignore them. Saying you can't is one thing.

We may have to just disagree, because I do NOT think you can simply ignore your perspective and interests. They are the foundation of your total social being. An attempt to ignore your background will inevitably fail, because it will be what is influcing your attempt to ignore it.

knowing what other people want is pretty simple, you ask them.

And then, using your own background, you assign a value to what that person has told you. You can't tell me that someone saying that they believe God's will should be done on Earth will get the same respect from you than a psych professor's. The background which creates the beliefs is something important. Perhaps it is flawed because of the background.

This guy's point is just amateur psychological relativism.

Which is funny because he's the farthest thing from a relativist... this is my point, not his.

In other words, what would be the consequences for everyone, if everyone did that.

Which is totally influenced by our backgrounds and perspective.

[Whaleboy]

Agathon, you don't like relativism eh?

[Agathon]

We may have to just disagree, because I do NOT think you can simply ignore your perspective and interests. They are the foundation of your total social being. An attempt to ignore your background will inevitably fail, because it will be what is influcing your attempt to ignore it.

I habitually do, and so do you. It's called the capacity to empathize, and most of us have it. You can be fully aware of your own perspective and interests (if you weren't how would you know that you weren't) and discount them. It's as simple as saying, "I am an atheist, but not everyone is." We only need to do this in the ordinary way we do it all the time for Rawls' idea to work.

And then, using your own background, you assign a value to what that person has told you. You can't tell me that someone saying that they believe God's will should be done on Earth will get the same respect from you than a psych professor's. The background which creates the beliefs is something important. Perhaps it is flawed because of the background.

Argghhh!!! They get exactly the same consideration. It just so happens that universalizing some beliefs works, and others do not (for example Nazism). But this is a subsequent matter to the initial experiment.

Which is totally influenced by our backgrounds and perspective.

Which is irrelevant because we can discount this. You seem to believe that you can know your own perspective without being able to discount it. But everyone can and habitually does (apart from psychopaths). If there are "hidden persuaders" then you don't know about them, so they are irrelevant.

But none of this has anything to do with the justification of Kant's principle, just its application.

Conservatives still have nothing to offer.

[Whaleboy]

Imran, as far as I can see, all you are doing is providing a reason for understanding the basis or narrative of a given action, instead of either working out who is responsible, or the manner of revenge to be exacted. I don't disagree, I'd much rather knee-jerk reactions are replaced by understanding... I just don't think it's answering the question here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I habitually do, and so do you. It's called the capacity to empathize, and most of us have it. You can be fully aware of your own perspective and interests (if you weren't how would you know that you weren't) and discount them. It's as simple as saying, "I am an atheist, but not everyone is." We only need to do this in the ordinary way we do it all the time for Rawls' idea to work.

But you really don't. Even though you emphathize and think you are discounting your own perspective and interests, you really are not. They are always part of the background and are always influencing your views and outlooks. You cannot get rid of them, even when you believe you are.

If there are "hidden persuaders" then you don't know about them, so they are irrelevant.

Not at all. Seeing as most mental activity is in the unconscious, they are anything but irrelevent. Unconscious thought guides conscious thought and can never be discounted.

But none of this has anything to do with the justification of Kant's principle, just its application.

And the application is the problem! Or have you not been reading?