Marxism At Yale

[Justin Schwartz]

Didn't mean any belittlement, sorry, it's a problem with tone on the 
Internet. I didn't understand what your question was. Now, are you asking 
why I don't like the VI? The short answer is that it abstracts from the 
actual motivations we have that, when we know we have them, make it 
overwhelkmingly unlikely that we will act to our own disadavantage if that 
is what is required by principles reached under the VI. I discuss this at 
length in Relativism, Reflective Equilibrium and Justice, 17 Legal Studies 
1997, available on the web. Ian Murray found it if you can't. jks


>From: "Luke Weiger" <lweiger at umich.edu>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Subject: Re: Marxism At Yale
>Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:59:27 -0800
>
>Justin wrote:
> > What's to make of what? Roemer's a sort of egalitarian; he may or may 
>not
>be
> > any sort of Marxust anymore. He has a proof that Harsanyi's model isn't 
>as
> > as egalitarian as H might like, and he doesn't like the veil of 
>ignornace.
> > Knowing Roemer, the math is right, and I don't like the VI either,
>
>In your case, a simple "why?" would seem to be a fitting question.  The VI
>could be seen both as good rule utilitarianism and a way to ensure
>distributive fairness.  The question of "What sort of world do you wish to
>live in?" answered by a party unaware of any relevant distinctions between
>herself and anyone else seems as though it may be potentially instructive.
>
>(BTW, I think my conversation starter was relatively innocuous and didn't
>merit belittlement.)
>
>-- Luke
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp