>
>Seems to me that what philosophical abstraction gets you sometimes is, well
>. . . philosophical abstraction. Practice is definitely more complex,
>which is probably why, after reading Kant, we run off to novels and other
>literature that represents people in more concrete dilemmas?
Not the point I was making. Rawls abstracts from the wrong things, thats' my point. All philosophical argument involves some, and often considerable abstraction. But Ia m not a Rortyan or Wittgensteinian who says who should give it up and write novels or whatever.
>
>So you would claim that what we have is another case of a philosophical
>"ideal" that doesn't match "reality."
Well, yes, but that's not informative.
>
>By the way, one of my econo-trained-monkey-MBA dear close friends sent me a
>response that Rawls sounded to him like "Pareto optimality" (whatever the
>hell that is -- I've heard it used).
>
No no no no. Pareto optimality is a state of affairs in which no transactions or transfers of utility can make anyone better off. It is a measure of efficiency compatible with gross injustice by Rawls' standards (or anyone's). Rawls want to ensure that the _least well off_ group is as well off as as it can be. If that means dispossessing the better off groups by a great deal, he's cool with that. In fact he think it is required. And such a result is decidedly NOT pareto optimal.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp