• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Rawlsian Justice

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
stxbuck;1210563; said:
I need to listen to more Lou Rawls-he's pretty smooth.
Seriously, though, I admit I have zero idea what this is.
Click to expand...

He's talking (I believe) about John Rawls, who put forth a formative theory of justice as fairness. It describes an initial situation in which actors, blind (Rawls's "veil of ignorance") to the motivations, beliefs, status or situation of others, enter into a social contract. This contract is fair, in that there is equality and symmetry between those who forge it; based on the assumption they are basically moral, rational, disinterested in one another's interests, and essentially just. From this foundation, or initial situation, we arrive (through Rawls) at the basic framework for society. First, a conception of justice, which is the code from which all else will be shaped and defined. The creation of a constitution would follow; then the formation of a legislature to enact laws. All of this, and everything that follows, built around the equity between the actors in the initial situation and agreement, which is the basis for his theory.

Rawls, like Hobbes, Aquinas, Austin, and others like them, generally form the different philosophies behind our foundational beliefs for 'man' and society. They all struggled with the nature of man, the nature of sovereignty and rules/commands -- it's all more philosophy than political science. I really got into my philosophy of law classes back in the day, and still read related to it, which is the only reason any of this is personally familiar. Even then, I had to go back and find one of my old papers to try and remember what the distinction between Rawls and Hobbes was as it relates to the nature of man. Essentially, Hobbes saw us (this is going to be a gross simplification) as rather feral and individual creatures who have to work against their nature to cooperate and form societies. The key to his theory that we all act in our own self interest, in pursuit of our own needs without any particular interest in the needs of others, which sometimes has us working (somewhat reluctantly or uncomfortably) as a pack. Rawls, on the other hand, believed that it was in our nature to form social groups and work together for mutual gain and benefit. The theories are less divergent than they sound, I think, they just start with different concepts of our nature.

None of it is stuff that's easily or quickly encapsulated. Maybe someone stumbling around here has or is pursuing a PhD in philosophy and can better enlighten us. It really is compelling stuff, inasmuch as all of it played roles in different approaches and our foundations for law and justice. It's also the basis for the critical legal theories. All of it speak to the nature of man, and all of it take the perspective of white man. While this doesn't mean it's all flawed, it has pushed some to question whether or not law based on such perspectives can ever be truly just to those they didn't represent. But now we could also getting into conflict theory and such -- I love this stuff. Wish I better understood all of it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I'm trying to figure out how many folks are in the following esteemed company ...
DaytonBuck;1210018; said:
I enjoy the fact the leather bound book crowd
Click to expand...
We should do a show of hands - who has any leather bound books - (raises hand).
I'm guessing that the leather bound book crowd is reasonably sizable.
DaytonBuck;1210018; said:
who's apartment smells of rich mahagony
Click to expand...
Not in an apartment - so count me out of this group, rich mahogany is another qualifier, I'm a teak and pecan man myself, but to each his own.

I did find this fellows blog, no idea if he is on BP though - or the pig.
DaytonBuck;1210018; said:
on the poli board
Click to expand...
Nor is it certain he is on the poli board - but who knows, an undeclared sub-set of the poli board population that has an apartment with leather bound books and rich mahogany furniture, suffusing the air with it's distinct aroma, might be as large as 20 screen names.
DaytonBuck;1210018; said:
who have many degrees
Click to expand...
OK - that cut down on the number right there. Let's be generous and say you have 5 left in your population. Many degrees simply aren't that common.
DaytonBuck;1210018; said:
including master disagrees in poly sci have no idea what this is.
Click to expand...
Master Disagrees - and it must be in Poli Sci?
Whew - even Phoenix University won't grant a Master Disagree.

I'm guessing your population fitting the above criteria is zero. No wonder nobody chimed in from your target audience. :)

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to discuss Rawls' philosophy of Justice as Fairness.
 
Upvote 0
sandgk;1210628; said:
I'm trying to figure out how many folks are in the following esteemed company ...

We should do a show of hands - who has any leather bound books - (raises hand).
I'm guessing that the leather bound book crowd is reasonably sizable.

Not in an apartment - so count me out of this group, rich mahogany is another qualifier, I'm a teak and pecan man myself, but to each his own.

I did find this fellows blog, no idea if he is on BP though - or the pig.

Nor is it certain he is on the poli board - but who knows, an undeclared sub-set of the poli board population that has an apartment with leather bound books and rich mahogany furniture, suffusing the air with it's distinct aroma, might be as large as 20 screen names.

OK - that cut down on the number right there. Let's be generous and say you have 5 left in your population. Many degrees simply aren't that common.

Master Disagrees - and it must be in Poli Sci?
Whew - even Phoenix University won't grant a Master Disagree.

I'm guessing your population fitting the above criteria is zero. No wonder nobody chimed in from your target audience. :)

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to discuss Rawls' philosophy of Justice as Fairness.
Click to expand...

You've obviously never seen Anchorman before
 
Upvote 0
Clarity;1210603; said:
He's talking (I believe) about John Rawls, who put forth a formative theory of justice as fairness. It describes an initial situation in which actors, blind (Rawls's "veil of ignorance") to the motivations, beliefs, status or situation of others, enter into a social contract. This contract is fair, in that there is equality and symmetry between those who forge it; based on the assumption they are basically moral, rational, disinterested in one another's interests, and essentially just. From this foundation, or initial situation, we arrive (through Rawls) at the basic framework for society. First, a conception of justice, which is the code from which all else will be shaped and defined. The creation of a constitution would follow; then the formation of a legislature to enact laws. All of this, and everything that follows, built around the equity between the actors in the initial situation and agreement, which is the basis for his theory.

Rawls, like Hobbes, Aquinas, Austin, and others like them, generally form the different philosophies behind our foundational beliefs for 'man' and society. They all struggled with the nature of man, the nature of sovereignty and rules/commands -- it's all more philosophy than political science. I really got into my philosophy of law classes back in the day, and still read related to it, which is the only reason any of this is personally familiar. Even then, I had to go back and find one of my old papers to try and remember what the distinction between Rawls and Hobbes was as it relates to the nature of man. Essentially, Hobbes saw us (this is going to be a gross simplification) as rather feral and individual creatures who have to work against their nature to cooperate and form societies. The key to his theory that we all act in our own self interest, in pursuit of our own needs without any particular interest in the needs of others, which sometimes has us working (somewhat reluctantly or uncomfortably) as a pack. Rawls, on the other hand, believed that it was in our nature to form social groups and work together for mutual gain and benefit. The theories are less divergent than they sound, I think, they just start with different concepts of our nature.

None of it is stuff that's easily or quickly encapsulated. Maybe someone stumbling around here has or is pursuing a PhD in philosophy and can better enlighten us. It really is compelling stuff, inasmuch as all of it played roles in different approaches and our foundations for law and justice. It's also the basis for the critical legal theories. All of it speak to the nature of man, and all of it take the perspective of white man. While this doesn't mean it's all flawed, it has pushed some to question whether or not law based on such perspectives can ever be truly just to those they didn't represent. But now we could also getting into conflict theory and such -- I love this stuff. Wish I better understood all of it.
Click to expand...
I love lamp
 
Upvote 0
Clarity;1210603; said:
He's talking (I believe) about John Rawls, who put forth a formative theory of justice as fairness. It describes an initial situation in which actors, blind (Rawls's "veil of ignorance") to the motivations, beliefs, status or situation of others, enter into a social contract. This contract is fair, in that there is equality and symmetry between those who forge it; based on the assumption they are basically moral, rational, disinterested in one another's interests, and essentially just. From this foundation, or initial situation, we arrive (through Rawls) at the basic framework for society. First, a conception of justice, which is the code from which all else will be shaped and defined. The creation of a constitution would follow; then the formation of a legislature to enact laws. All of this, and everything that follows, built around the equity between the actors in the initial situation and agreement, which is the basis for his theory.

Rawls, like Hobbes, Aquinas, Austin, and others like them, generally form the different philosophies behind our foundational beliefs for 'man' and society. They all struggled with the nature of man, the nature of sovereignty and rules/commands -- it's all more philosophy than political science. I really got into my philosophy of law classes back in the day, and still read related to it, which is the only reason any of this is personally familiar. Even then, I had to go back and find one of my old papers to try and remember what the distinction between Rawls and Hobbes was as it relates to the nature of man. Essentially, Hobbes saw us (this is going to be a gross simplification) as rather feral and individual creatures who have to work against their nature to cooperate and form societies. The key to his theory that we all act in our own self interest, in pursuit of our own needs without any particular interest in the needs of others, which sometimes has us working (somewhat reluctantly or uncomfortably) as a pack. Rawls, on the other hand, believed that it was in our nature to form social groups and work together for mutual gain and benefit. The theories are less divergent than they sound, I think, they just start with different concepts of our nature.

None of it is stuff that's easily or quickly encapsulated. Maybe someone stumbling around here has or is pursuing a PhD in philosophy and can better enlighten us. It really is compelling stuff, inasmuch as all of it played roles in different approaches and our foundations for law and justice. It's also the basis for the critical legal theories. All of it speak to the nature of man, and all of it take the perspective of white man. While this doesn't mean it's all flawed, it has pushed some to question whether or not law based on such perspectives can ever be truly just to those they didn't represent. But now we could also getting into conflict theory and such -- I love this stuff. Wish I better understood all of it.
Click to expand...

Spotlight on John Rawls, y'all.
 
Upvote 0
Aristotle is nice, but you can't dance to him. I prefer Plato.

From The Republic:
"Mankind censure injustice fearing that they may be the victims of it, and not because they shrink from committing it."
 
Upvote 0
Clarity;1211859; said:
Aristotle is nice, but you can't dance to him. I prefer Plato.

From The Republic:
"Mankind censure injustice fearing that they may be the victims of it, and not because they shrink from committing it."
Click to expand...
One would be hard-pressed to identify a better archetype for "cynic" than ol' Plato.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1213336; said:
Why don't they ever show him crapping and masturbating in public instead of with the lamp? High school students would dig that story far more.
Click to expand...

They could show him in a rainbow shirt with a dildo looking for an honest "sweaty mens". :biggrin: Ok, so it's not a lantern, but clearly he's looking for a man:

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top