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

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
But a weak norm is not sufficient. That's agreed by almost everyone. Efficiency is not an end, it has to do with means to ends. We choose the most efficient mean to an end. Unless you specify some end efficiency is pointless. Efficiency at acheiving what? Efficiency?

Why not efficiency at whatever society chooses to do? Why can't that be a norm?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That is an heuristic device. We can get the same results as the veil for most situations by simply reversing what everyone else does, rather than discounting our own preferences. The veil of ignorance requires you to consider yourself as any person in the prospective society.

Problem being that putting myself in other people's shoes doesn't get me to Rawls' conclusions. His political rights sound nice and I'm fine with it. His economic stuff just doesn't work when I put myself in the shoes of the poor, middle class, rich. I think that the poor have not demonstrated, by evidence, that having the government subsidize them up to the median income (say) would be beneficial in light of looking through the eyes of the middle class, who would be the one taxed for it (the rich can always find a loophole somewhere.. no matter how airtight you try to make it).

Anyway, the point is that someone else, maybe yourself, would look at the economic stuff of Rawls and say, yeah, if I put myself in their shoes, I'd accept Rawls' conclusions.

Our backgrounds influence what weight we give to other opinions we put ourselves into. They may also influence what we think will occur when we put ourselves in others shoes.

No. He's ****ed.

Please speak to a psychoanalyst about this. They are still using the talking technique that Freud developed a century ago and his basic principles of getting an accessway into the unconscious through free association.

[Kidlicious]

Dang. I would like to particapate, but I don't have enough time.

[Agathon]

Why not efficiency at whatever society chooses to do? Why can't that be a norm?

It already is. It's otiose. How many societies or conceptions of justice do you know of where people don't think we should try and achieve the goal as efficiently as possible?

The Nazis were hyper efficient at eliminating Jews, but no sane person believes that was just.

Problem being that putting myself in other people's shoes doesn't get me to Rawls' conclusions.

Sure it does. That is all the veil of ignorance really is.

I think that the poor have not demonstrated, by evidence, that having the government subsidize them up to the median income (say) would be beneficial in light of looking through the eyes of the middle class, who would be the one taxed for it (the rich can always find a loophole somewhere.. no matter how airtight you try to make it).

Rawls wouldn't say that the poor should be subsidized up to the median income anyway.

In the case of both Rawls and Kant you place yourself in the position of the person who is benefited by the redistribution and the person who is made worse off by it. Who is worse off? That is an empirical question. If it turns out that the person taxed is harmed to a greater degree than the person benefited (including the benefit which accrues to others) then it is immoral to tax them.

People who say that they can't put themselves into the shoes of the poor in such a situation are just pretending, so as to get out of the argument. The only people who really can't do so are suffering from psychopathy.

And Freud is just silly. I don't know anyone who has ever been cured by that crap.

On the other hand, I think he still has the best explanation of jokes that has ever been given.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
It already is. It's otiose. How many societies or conceptions of justice do you know of where people don't think we should try and achieve the goal as efficiently as possible?

The Nazis were hyper efficient at eliminating Jews, but no sane person believes that was just.

The Nazis were perfectly sane. You're just saying "most people don't believe X, so it's not valid". That's such a blatant fallacy that I'm at a loss as to how you don't see it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The Nazis were perfectly sane.

[Kuciwalker]

Main Entry: sane
Function: adjective
: mentally sound; specifically : able to understand one's actions and distinguish right from wrong

The Nazis were perfectly able to distinguish right from wrong. They just used a different rubric

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sure it does.

No it doesn't. I come to a different conclusion that Rawls does when I put myself in others shoes. I don't get his socialist paradise.

Who is worse off? That is an empirical question. If it turns out that the person taxed is harmed to a greater degree than the person benefited (including the benefit which accrues to others) then it is immoral to tax them.

No, it's a subjective question. How do you know who is empirically harmed more? Some say the poor are harmed more by not having more social programs, while others say the middle class are harmed more by being taxed more. I have no idea which one is right. I just know what my position is.

And Freud is just silly. I don't know anyone who has ever been cured by that crap.

You don't know many people. I have known folks who have been immensly helped by therapy.