[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

[FONT="Arial Narrow"][SIZE="3"][FONT="Arial Narrow"]
So why present theories on justice and describe systems of thought that tilt towards Utopian design?

Because a Rawlsian conception of justice isn't utopian. Not even by half. Here's why:

Firstly, the original position/veil of ignorance thought experiment is not practical it is simply a thought experiment to get us to the two principles that self-interested, rational agents would choose if they were able to and knew *nothing* about where they would land in the social hierarchy. However, you'll note there *is* a social hierarchy.

So, rational actors, operating with full knowledge of their current social position would behave as follows. I'm a black woman so whatever rules we're going to make in our new society, I'm going to ensure that me and mine are advantaged. If that disadvantages white men, so be it. If I'm rich I'm going to make sure that what I do advantages, or at least doesn't hurt, the rich etc. But what if I don't *know* whether I will be rich or poor, the racial majority or minority, male or female, etc. Would I willingly agree to a system of social principles that would cause me harm? No. Would you? No.

But notice here that Rawls *presumes* social hierarchies. Built into the thought experiment is this assumption: I'm a doctor and my best friend is a lawyer. We're both well off and have kids who are just finishing post-grad work. My daughter is becoming a lawyer and her daughter is becoming a doctor Knowing this, over drinks, I arrange for her child to interview at my practice (where she will be hired) and she arranges for my child to interview at her law firm (where she will hired). Now, does the poor child who worked hard and got into law school have that advantage? No. Rawls *assumes* this will not change and nothing can be done so it *can* change. However, we *might* be able to put in social structures that *mimic* the advantages the poor kid does not have.

This is why it is not utopian. A utopian premise would be either there would be no rich and no poor (completely egalitarian) or that even IF there are rich and poor there will be no benefit to being rich (no connections). Rawlsians assume that there will be rich and they will be connected. Rawlsians assume that there will be majority populations and minority populations and that minority populations may be subject to discrimination, etc. So the Rawlsian tries to figure out how to balance the scales in as light-handed a way as possible. Utopians assume human nature can be changed, Rawlsians assume it can't but that society can be rigged in such a way that any inequalities benefit those who have the *least* and not the *most*.

Our current society is rigged to bring the greatest benefit to the most well off and the least benefit to the least well off. Rawlsians want to reverse that but at no point do we maintain the illusion that there will be a society where there won't *be* people who are better off than others, just that we can tip the scales so that least well-off aren't stuck in utterly hopeless positions relative to the most well-off. That's not utopian at all.

Cheers
Aj




"Likening what happens in woodlands to the popular Nintendo Wii game,
Spore Wars, Ph.D student Tom Crowther's study has just been published in
the international journal Ecology Letters. His findings reveal that, by
feeding on the most combative fungi, invertebrates ensure that less
competitive species are not entirely destroyed or digested."

So where is that intervening force in the human race or in our communities? Where is the tolerance and in fact protection of "less competitive" voices - a tolerance and protection that Rawls' or any good judicial system must in fact be predicated upon?

And as we live now in the age of seven billion (thank you for the post on this, AJ), with nine billion looming closer than we think, and in a world of dwindling resources, how will any system of thought, any societal structure that rewards competition, hierarchies and hegemonies play out?

I think we know. And I think some part of us imagines we are heading for a time of brutal realities and choices with no hope of Utopian systems of thought, however worthy or even practical they seem in theory, let alone in praxis. And I think that scares the stuffing out of us. As well it should.[/QUOTE]