In a message dated Mon, 31 Jan 2000 1:12:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, Ken Hanly <khanly at mb.sympatico.ca> writes:
> As Nozick points out, Rawls is completely ahisotrical
Cite please? Rawls has a hypothetical choice theory. But even in the 1971 version, he was quite clear that it only applies in certain historical circumstances, namely, fairly advanced development of what we would cal the productive forces. And Nozick know this.
Moreover, Rawls' recent work (Political Liberalism, some of the later papers) is a lot more historically rooted than perhaps it ought to be. Sometimes Rawls seems to be getting downright communitarian these days.
> and also idiotic
This would be a really dumb thing to say about the thinker who is without competetion as THE political philosopher of the 20th century. Nozick, not being an diot himself, would not say this. Besides, they have better manners at the Harvard philosophy dept than we do on this list.
> -although
> he doesn't make the latter remark because Rawls is a big name competitor for the
> Academy Awards in ideological defence of capitalism.
This is tiresome. Rawls is absolutely crystal clear that his theory and his two principle do not commit one to capitalism. He is open to the possibility that it would require socialism to realize his conception of justice. He believes that the socialism that would do this would have to be market socialism, but taht is not a deep consequence of his theory, byt only an empirical belief, which I share, that so far as we know markets are required for a reasonable standard of living and ana cceptable level of efficiency. But if that were false, Rawls could and would say, great, let's have planned socialsim if planned socialism were the only way to realize the two principles of justice. Rodney Peffer has made the point that Rawls and socialism are compatible at great length in Part II of Marx, Morality, and Social Justice.
> Rawls claims that the natural
> distribution is neither just or unjust it just is a fact.
> This completely denies any historical aspect of justice.
You misunderstand Rawld. He thinks that means that the "natural distribution" of whatever (talent, wealth, etc.) has no moral claim to be respected whatsoever. If things "happen" to be unjust, we have to rearrange things so that they are just.
> So if whites drove
> aboriginals off their lands and herded them onto reservations or wiped them out
> as the Beothuk in Newfoundland
> thats just a fact.
It is a fact, but Rawls would say that it is subject to moral appraisal, and guess what? He would say it was unjust. As indeed would Nozick.
> If this nonsense is true. why isnt it just a fact and neither
> just or unjust that
> institutions deal with these facts?
Uh, because Rawls thinks that institutions are subject to historical choice--Yoshie makes fun of this fundamentally historical materialist point, when it is in Rawls' mouth, by calling it a consumerist point of view, as if Rawls thought you pick out just institutions off the supermarket shelf. Rawls thinks no such thing, as you may gather from his discussion of the abolitionitists or Dr. king in Political Liberalism. But he does think that that we don't have to accept whatever history has handed us and say "thank you." In fact he think it would be wrong to do that.
> Rawls' problem is that he writes clearly. The
> nonsense is transparent, unlike pomo nonsense.
Well, I wouldn't overdo how clearly he writes. But were he goes wrong, one can make it out. You have misunderstood him.
> Rawls meant his theory of justice to be an ideal model by which to judge
> existing arrangements. I don't think he meant to imply that it would be that easy
> to reach. Of course the same was true of Plato's ventures into an ideal republic.
Yes, so? I mean, actually I thinka great deal can be made of this, and I have indeed made a great deal of it, beating Rawls up for being too idealistic. But what are you making of it? Is the comparison to Plato--no doubt another idiot--supposed to make Rawls look bad?
>
> Rawls also claims that aristocratic and caste societies are unjust because
> they incorporate contingencies found in nature. Wow. Rawls is a chaos theorist.
Wha? Look, you might think (I do) that a correct theory of justice would have to find a place for arbitarry contingencies, like the fact tahts ome people are smarter or stronger than others. But it is not crazy for Rawls to think that justice at the bottom consists in in making up for the arbitrariness of the world. If you are tryoing to suggest that Rawls is going in for trendy nonsense, let me assure you he knwos less about chaos theory tahn you do and it has nothing to do with his thought.
> I
> would think that the injustice of aristocratic and caste societies had something
> to do with the way that they treated non-aristocrats and lower castes. . . . Even if it were not contingent it would surely still be unjust to treat
> non-aristocrats and lower castes in the way that aristocratic and caste societies
> do.
I guess you mean beating them and things like that. Rawls would not disagree. But he is making a different point. He is addressing what are the correct principles for distribution of the good things of life, like wealth and freedom. Rawls' point is that it is unjust for aristocrats to get more wealth and freedom than peasants merely because they were born to aristocratic families. That seems quite sensible. Do you disagree?
> Rawls is eminent mainly because: i) he gives a clear defence of liberal
> capitalism--even though he says his theory of justice could apply under
> socialism.
Uh, so why is it a defense of liberal capitalism? You think he doesmn't really mean it about socialism?
> ii) he melds together the tradition of social contract, the maxi-min
> strategy of game theory, the assumption of rational egoists behind the veil of
> ignorance, and the Kantian universalisation principle, together with the odd
> fashionable poke at the principle of utility.
You know, back in 1971, Rawls was unique, absolutely unique, in attacking utilitarianism. If it's fashoonable to do so now, thank him.
> Of course this is all put together in a lucid but incoherent fashion.
How incoherent? It may be wrong. I think it is, but incoherent is a strong word. You seem to be suggesting that it's nonsensical rubbish that is plainly enough written to make out as such. And that, frankly, is rubbish.
> When state
> intervention in the econony became unfashionable, the spotlight turned to Nozick
> who also uses contract theory as Yoshie points out.
Actually, no. And, while we are at it, neither does, Rawls. Agreement palys no part in Rawls, because the deliberations of the persons in the original position are set up so that they don't actually disagree about anything. There is, for all practical purposes, one person in the OP. Rawls has a hypothetical consent theory, but not a contract theory.
Nozick also has no agreement. What he has is a distribution of wealth that emerges out of voluntary bilateral transactions, but one one is ever asked whether they agree to that distribution of wealth, as G.A. Cohen objected a long time ago. And the Nozickean satte does not depend on a contract,s ince nonconformists can be coerced to accept the authority of the dominant protective association.
Anyway, what's you're point, that Rawls is of no interest, a boring footnote to Keynesian economics? Then Marx is of no interest, a borning footnote to an utterly failed social system.
--jks