How Do You Design a Just Society? | Thought Experiment: The Original Position

How Do You Design a Just Society? | Thought Experiment: The Original Position


Comments

  1. Post
    Author
    WindowHero

    One problem, you acknowledge that the philosophy focuses on material justice, and use that as a transition to the importance of social justice, which is important, but it ignores the, in my opinion, overwhelming importance of agency. As we all know, agency is the ability to make and act on decisions, and put simply, the purpose of an ideal government is to maximize the agency of everybody. This is more inclusive than you might think, for example if something someone does bothers you, they are probably (though not necessarily, being offended by the way other people choose to be is not valid here) reducing your agency, and an evaluation would need to be done to determine if the reduction in your agency is more important than the reduction in their agency that would result from preventing them. For example, it is obvious that if you kill someone, you remove all of their agency, while if you prevent someone from killing people, you simply prevent them from being able to kill people, and the evaluation is clear. Unfortunately, there is a massive spectrum of grey in between here, and most people will over value there own agency and interests, and disregard things that are important to others, which actually circles nicely back around to the original state. Access to resources is also important to agency, since if you don't have access to resources, fewer options are available to you. Being treated fairly is also important, because within some bounds, being who you choose is important to your own agency, insofar as it does not interfere with the agency of others.

  2. Post
    Author
  3. Post
    Author
    James Long

    those dirty commies! advocating violence to set up a society! everybody knows that our neoliberal capitalist representative democracy was created entirely peacefully without any exploitation or violence at all!

  4. Post
    Author
    Garland Key

    The 2600 tee is fitting, hippie. Also, this video is 13:53 long to say something that should be a person's default thought. This is why philosophy always seemed like bullshit to me – a lot of talking to arrive to a conclusion that is obvious.

  5. Post
    Author
    Jőnkë Vųh

    (Don't I'm not antisemitic or a neonazi , I'm just asking so please be civilized)If we want to know the truth we should be open minded , isn't thaat so ? So if that's true then why we just throw out the window the ideas of antisemitism ?

  6. Post
    Author
    Carrie Parsons

    I know I'm late to comment on this, but when you say bring in as many different perspectives as possible, are you hinting at intersectionality?

  7. Post
    Author
    Serif Sans Serif

    Quite a flip from the idea about media and bias….

    I think economics are probably the very first thing I would set to try and equalize (though some inequality may exist, not to the extent it does today).

    Beyond that, it's about maximizing freedoms while protecting people from the freedoms of others (that share the same freedoms and controls).

  8. Post
    Author
  9. Post
    Author
  10. Post
    Author
    shadfurman

    I think trying to plan a society is absurd. "Good ideas" nearly always have unintended consequences, people are pretty bad at identifying the possible unintended consequences. I think the best society is based on a very simple set of rules. A simple structure of rules is much easier to map through all possible avenues, for individuals to understand and comply with, allows for less interpretation in trying to map events to a complex set of laws and defined consequence.

    To me, the obvious place to start is a set of initiating moral assumptions. The simplest set of morals society can mostly agree on. If there is a hierarchy to the morals, ie some morals are more moral than others, and could logically be in conflict, morals should be prioritized. Then a logical extrapolation from that initiating set of assumed morals is computed, when it comes to a logical conclusion… You stop. Right there.

    I think a large problem with society, is that segments of the population assume different morals in a closed tribalist ecosystem of ideas, and try and force them onto society. They say, well this is bad, it should be fixed. But bad is subjective, and the best way things should be fixed is assumptive without testing. The "fix" usually causes unintended consequences, which are rarely accurately identified. The bad consequences are identified as bad, and a new patch is slapped on society with its own set of consequences.

    Eventually society reaches a point of complexity where it cannot function per its documentation (laws). Contradictions allow for nearly any possible interpretation and people with sufficient capital to navigate the minefield can subjugate those that don't have the means. Those without the means to navigate the minefield of a convoluted society are trampled in a horrible violation of the societies founding set of assumed morals. More complexity will never fix this problem.

    So, simple is better. When you reach the logical conclusions for the structure of society based on assumed moral principles, stop. Logical leaps are not allowed no matter the emotion.

  11. Post
    Author
    Jordan Barfield

    The idea of making a perfect society is addressed in Plato Republic where the letter of the nation would have to be prune to become the leader while not knowing he will be leader

  12. Post
    Author
  13. Post
    Author
    JoeJoeTater

    I don't think an original-position designer could meaningfully understand the needs of humanity or communicate the results to us. If you accept the either version of the Whorf hypothesis, then the designer would necessarily have to understand the biases of our cultures. So, they would either be unable to communicate with us, or not be original-position-y.

  14. Post
    Author
    Khandnalie

    I think that the OP committee is not necessarily a good tool for designing a just society, in much the same way that a scientist might not necessarily be a good engineer. The gap between ideals and application is a wide one, and while an OP committee may seek to remove the self, it also removes all of the personal hands on experience which gives rise to a deeper understanding of how society functions. Without that understanding, a person is fundamentally ill equipped to go about designing a society for roughly the same reason that someone with a soldering iron and a physics textbook is fundamentally ill equipped to go about designing a microprocessor. Yeah, that's a good place to start from, but it only gets you so far. That being said, I think that an OP committee would be decent at judging whether or not a society designed by more life-experienced committees is just.

  15. Post
    Author
  16. Post
    Author
  17. Post
    Author
    Thibauld nuyten

    If someone would teach me how to go about it, I would make a genuine attempt at making rules for a new, just society. But right now, I'd have no idea where to start.

  18. Post
    Author
    barryn56

    People seem to equate "Just" with everyone having the same "stuff". We don't. The world we live in does not have that as a concept, and it would be futile – and damaging – to try and introduce it. It would be better to design society to work towards common agreed goals – like developing fusion and getting the ability to travel interstellar distances. Stuff we're going to need in the future. It would be useful to design governments to focus on this rather than having high net worth individuals have to pioneer it.

  19. Post
    Author
    Ondrej Paska

    Much better: take committee of people who will not themselves live in the society, but somewhere else (other country). Then pay them each year according to the percentage of happy people in your society (yearly poll).

  20. Post
    Author
  21. Post
    Author
    Assume Correct

    I think that a society that valued polyamorous family structures would work best because it would allow for greater specialization and efficiency in home care tasks. (Though, then again, so would robots).

  22. Post
    Author
  23. Post
    Author
    Fearofthemonster

    Average joe with no knowledge of himself: "I would surely be a very succesful person because I am surely smart. Let's create a society where a succesful 1% has all the good stuff. I would surely be amongst them."

  24. Post
    Author
    Heliowolf

    I don't see how a just or fair society is even possible without redefining just and fair to a divine standard. It seems like a paradox to me, if everyone is treated equally, then natural inequality (physical difference like strenght, ability and intelligence) will separate them, but if you compensate for natural inequality then you aren't testing people as equals. Furthermore if you really took manual equality to the extreme we would all end up with identical lives. Obviously must get as close to unachievable goals as possible, but why not also recognize effectiveness as the original purpose of society.

  25. Post
    Author
    Oliver Javier

    A nice thought but I think the flaw here is even trusting the people to "try" the thought experiment. People who work in their self interested are trusted to work in their own self interest.

  26. Post
    Author
    Punk Patriot

    What Rawls tries to achieve through the original position, a committee of people who design all positions to be fair because they could inhabit any of them, can be achieved in practice as Marx advocates, by simply letting all people in society democratically build all aspects of society.

  27. Post
    Author
    Magmoormaster

    We did a mock version of the original position in my ethics class last semester. We came up with various policies, voted on them, and then were given a randomized identity, which was usually something that would be considered a minority or other "less than ideal" position in society. We then repeated the process with the understanding of what the possible identities were.

    Unfortunately, it devolved into a more and more socialist society.

    The only society that is truly "just" or "fair" would be a minarchy. A society where you are free to do whatever you choose, so long as it doesn't cause physical harm to another or their property. It has a minimal government that basically only functions to protect its citizens from said harm.

    Anything else is unjust. To try and force the "moral" or "just" action on another (literally or figuratively by making the opposite action illegal) is the worst kind of immorality. Anything beyond what I described in the paragraph above does that. For example, in the United States, the welfare system is funded by taxes. While it is the moral obligation of those who have the means to give to the poor and needy, forcing them to by requiring them to pay taxes is a much worse offence. 99% of the services provided by the federal government are less efficient than those of the private sector anyway (look at UPS vs USPS, for example).

  28. Post
    Author
    Khalil Pineda

    Something that Rawl's makes absolutely clear is how flimsy the pretense of detachment or universality always is as it is always already compromised by the particular in one way or another. He assumed that from this point of detachment we'd all agree that the best society is some form of meritocratic liberal democracy, but any concept of merit having moral weight depends on ideas of freedom, the individual, and their supposed responsibility and control over their own lives. If we accepted as truly contingent the things we got out of life, we wouldn't opt for systems based on ideas of responsibility – there'd be no concept of responsibility. I do think, however, that the idea of approaching any subject position as contingent, that making moral decisions from a space in which you could be anyone, demands a humility and an empathy towards otherness that to me is a genuinely good place to think about morality, and I don't see how it is different from the idea of multiplicity you suggest. Maybe these two aren't irreconciliable and the veil of ignorance is just that question of what system would one device if one weighed the interests of all these wildly different people the same.

  29. Post
    Author
    jim liu

    You can't creat a just society because the present was influenced by an unjust past; also people are inherently unjust.

  30. Post
    Author
    Kurt Coleman

    "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them."

  31. Post
    Author
    indiana201333

    The best way to make a just society is to not be part of it but still knowing everything about it. Something like us playing The sims but to a much larger scale.

  32. Post
    Author
  33. Post
    Author
  34. Post
    Author
  35. Post
    Author
    Timothy McLean

    I don't think there's ever a justification for keeping the people designing a society from knowing about the history of those who came before and tried to do the same.

  36. Post
    Author
  37. Post
    Author
    Shockszzbyyous

    here is my take, everybody has a job, you don't like that job? you get a different job. done. what are you working for? uh oops/

  38. Post
    Author
  39. Post
    Author
    Blackroom Magus

    Designing a society depends on the people living in it. If we're talking about the people living in the world right now, then we have to take in consideration the social evolution of our current society.

    If we want to design a society from scratch, well the ideas available are from the evolution of this society, so it would directly influence the new society.

    The way I see it we already have a perfect society or we can't have a perfect society, because everything we do to improve it, we take it from past experiences. The drive to perfect society comes from the drive to have an optimal environment for reproduction, for our children's children, it is an evolutionary trait in our human condition.

    If life was perfect we shouldn't have the need to reproduce, to make it better. But because life is not perfect we have the need to evolve it. So a perfect society is only possible in an unchanging environment.

  40. Post
    Author
    Viridian

    I remember I did this for a political science class and my country won with the largest amount of the class support. I wonder if I were too go back and redo that if it would be better or worse, and what I would change and keep the same.

  41. Post
    Author
  42. Post
    Author
  43. Post
    Author
    Aaron Baker

    I think there is a difference between not knowing of discrimination against groups and not knowing which group your member is in. I would want my op committee to know of racial/sexual/sexual orientation discrimination but without knowing which race, gender, etc is disadvantaged, and I might even use codes for each group, so cismales are the orange group VB and lesbians are the brown group. that way my committee members are aware that they might be in a disadvantaged group or a group with inherited advantages but won't know which. I would also welcome statements and philosophies that say group white is inherently inferior or that group mauve secretly controls the world because with each group member considering that they might be in group mauve or white they can consider the best way to guard against inherent prejudice, while also being aware that they might be in group orange that is doing quite well

  44. Post
    Author
    Kilian K

    What we need its an mathematical axiomatic model of morality from which for every situation the right decision can be derived. Defining those axioms could be quite a challenge though.

  45. Post
    Author
  46. Post
    Author
    bobsobol

    You don't need an OP comity to outlaw laws and legislation. So long as it is understood that it is unjust to impose your will upon another, even (and perhaps especially) when your will is that of the majority imposed upon a minority, then people will get along, or not, just as much as they should.

    Does anarchy produce bands of murdering thieves? Probably no more than democracy. If your one law is that it's wrong to make someone else do something they don't want to, then making someone die before they're ready, or making them give you things they wanted to keep is clearly wrong.

    Actually, the more difficult judgement to make is Trumps wall. It may be wrong to prevent people from going, living and working where they want to, but how do you square that with people who don't want to live and work with them, when those are the people they most want to live and work with? How do you deal with that annoying younger cousin who just wont stop following you around everywhere you go. The one who you left your dream home just to get away from, only to find they followed you to your new home 3 months later. 🙁

  47. Post
    Author
  48. Post
    Author
    Ricardo Petinga

    What bugs me is why would Rawls even hint at what a perfect society would be like if he was not in the "original position" himself. If he claimed that the only way to be able to design that perfect society would be to be in that "original position", and he wasn't, what good was his guessing if it was inherently flawed? That may have been something he enjoyed for himself, but a truly fair society is one that is enjoyed by all, fogetting none, and he was certainly forgetting certain things like the Jim Crow laws or the fact that women weren't allowed to vote, different sexual, gender and relational identities and orientations were considered abominations and sinful and whatnot. Now, I know I just made a claim about what a truly fair society is and that people can say that's a not actually fair and question who I think I am that I can just claim to know without a shadow of doubt what true fairness is. I'm not playing that game.

    I do see a good premise in what Rawls proposes, but I think the answers sought precede the questions that are to be asked by people in the "original position", and might be in some of the conditions that are considered necessary for them to ask those questions without bias. He claims, and I agree to an extent, that those people must not know anything about themselves. Nationality, for example. If it is to be a global society of fairness, then I think it is safe to assume that being more emotionally attached to one place rather than another will create unbalance in the decision making. Nationalism is an "us and them" mentality, it creates an invisible divide which can and often does lead to "us vs them". If a "versus" occurs, which means competition, then it becomes a game of who's ahead and who's behind, who's winning and who's losing, who's better and who's worse, which is arguably relatively inocuous to a society if it's between individuals, but if it's between groups it may give people attached to those groups complexes of superiority or inferiority, pride and resentment. I don't think I need to further explain where that leads to because we're all here alive in 2017 and whatching things happen in the world around us. So, what I meant in the beginning of this long paragraph was that if those people can't know their nationality, we're already making a statement that nationalism is a problem, an obstacle to fair decision making. If we already identify that problem, we already know that we must work to remove it from the design. Then we probably must seek all other concepts that cause the same or similar symptoms and see to what extent we need to do the same to them, or what is the common thread between them and eliminate that thread, and see if anything remains of those concepts that can be salvaged without it.

    I could go on and on but I don't want to make this more bothersome than it already is. Just want to add that what I think is the essential question before any design is: what do we all, without exception, need? Then we go, cooperatively, for the simplest way to achieve the basics, making sure to leave room (time) for the cooperative development of ways to improve upon that simplicty. Then we get to what we want, which, the way I see it, but I might be wrong, becomes a non-issue. We also need to take into account that when Rawls formulated his theory, we didnt have the technology and overall scientific knowledge we have today. And also, that many authors have already designed societies on paper, some were tried and failed, some of those perhaps more due to faulty means and people in charge of building based on those designs than on the designs themselves, and some designs haven't been tried yet on a large enough scale. Since we're talking about designing a society, I would like to recommend people check out The Venus Project. Is it faulty? What do you think?

    I love this channel. Always great food for thought. Keep up the good work.

  49. Post
    Author
    Elfos64

    Stripping away one's identity so they can't prioritize it… that seems like kind of a flawed line of reasoning. Why not just form a society with selective enough citizenship that only certain kinds of people are allowed to be part of it, so you won't have to worry about any kind of person getting disfavored or anything. Maybe just train your committee to have as much empathy as possible so that they know how wrong it is to disfavor anyone. Stripping away identity like that will inevitably cause separation/disconnect from the people they're supposed to be acting in the best interest of, that's a recipe for disaster.

  50. Post
    Author
  51. Post
    Author
  52. Post
    Author
    LiteratureSim

    For the first time ever, I actually feel kind of disappointed with an episode of idea channel. This episode seemed to unnecessarily focus on John Rawls himself rather than the actual idea. It provided no ways of defending John Rawls against new criticisms, or fixing problems in the original idea that didn't come from him at all, and so it kinda threw the idea under the bus along with its original author. Overall, I don't think it's that bad of an idea. An AI that creates new AIs, as already discussed, would at least be less human, and not interested in their own already existing position. And whether you warn them about injustice or begin operations in a system that treats separate identities as a nonentity, you will end up with the same basic result. If you know that women have been discriminated against, you'll take steps to stop that. If you don't, you still know that you could end up as either a man or a woman, so you take steps to be fair to both. And that problem could actually be worse in a society of many personalities. Alike personalities – the strong, the majority – would gang up on the personalities that don't fit with them, and you end up with injustice much easier than it to suddenly springing up out of blankness. In the original position, at least that's far off, rather than the tyranny of the majority that is the status quo right now. Just my two cents. And try not to get caught up with individual authors so much

  53. Post
    Author
    Semyon Mart

    >when you can became anyone you will make up better live for everyone
    No, you just calculate your probabilities, since you know which groups will be presented waster.

  54. Post
    Author
    monkeymox

    I've never understood why the committee members have to have limited knowledge of society.Given that this is a thought experiment anyway, why not envision a world in which this committee is plucked at random from the general population, told to design a society, and told that once completed, they'll be returned to a random position in society – I'm imagining here that every aspect of their person could be changed. They'd enter into the committee with relevant knowledge of the world and their own biases, but they'd have to identify any biases which may effect them negatively once reassigned, and try to consciously eliminate those biases from their reasoning.

  55. Post
    Author
  56. Post
    Author
    yawh brawh

    wouldn't a society built on wants and needs and not economic growth be much simpler and more manageable? there's studies about happiness helping growth in every aspect in life, why wouldn't we build a civilization based on that evidence?

  57. Post
    Author
    OJA23122011

    I appreciate that u said that Jews are media controllers
    They kill Muslims every day in paradise and the west support them! Just like when they supported killing Muslim in Iraq and Afghanistan

  58. Post
    Author
    Paint Pen

    LMAO It made me laugh so hard when Mike said "I hope you are taking notes" because i was taking notes for my homework

  59. Post
    Author
  60. Post
    Author
  61. Post
    Author
  62. Post
    Author
  63. Post
    Author
    shawn robson

    The "original position" alone is flawed, but establishing a just society should involve policy makers who bear the risk, or can mentally understand an sympathize with the risk, of falling into another "lower class." Even if this isn't plausible, that kind of empathy is something we should demand of our leaders. It is fine to have a thought process that doesn't reject hard-work and achievement, and t
    he rewards incumbent on those, but we need a system that also recognizes the other areas people can fall, even if they may be intelligent and motivated. There will never be a fair society, but we can work to a fairer society, an pragmatism is the only way to accomplish it given that we can't start society from scratch again (or let us hope we don't have to). I have much more to say on this, and I'm just writing because i can't sleep, so his isn't thesis level work, but the attitude to how government should be constructed/run, etc is something that i think needs reform. Sadly, i think the reform needs to come from the people, and my hope of a pragmatic, centrist, realist population that can face challenges in a way that creates the best results for all is at a low point, at the very least I would enjoy to discuss this subject more both from a theoretical and a "real-world" approach, but i'm not going to ramble on anymore.

  64. Post
    Author
    Joshua G

    No such thing as a just society or a utopia or whatever. There will always be someone who disagrees or who would be oppressed simply because their idea of an ideal is fundamentally different. Their idea of basic justice could be a complete opposite from others.

  65. Post
    Author
    hermoda

    What about the position that societies should not be designed, but naturally evolve by people's interaction with eachother? Why is a central power nescessary to have a society?

  66. Post
    Author
  67. Post
    Author
  68. Post
    Author
    Erick Martinez

    a committee in the OP will tend toward the majority. if I'm going to think I might be any of the population but I know that I'm most likely to end up being middle class because that's most people I'm not going to be thinking about the poor or the rich I'm going to zero in on that middle class.

  69. Post
    Author
  70. Post
    Author
  71. Post
    Author
  72. Post
    Author
    Edward Dodson

    Social democracy seems to be the best our species can come up with as a way to reign in the more aggressive and anti-social behaviors we exhibit. Unfortunately, social democracies have failed to identify and embrace the truly just basis for distinguishing between individual and societal property. This intellectual and values enigma has resulted in the income and wealth concentration characteristic in every society that has abandoned the communitarian principles of tribal organization. The solutions were offered to us by many thoughtful but largely ignored individuals. A good place to start is with the writings of the American political economist Henry George.

  73. Post
    Author
  74. Post
    Author
    Lyno 12

    @4:15: Justice =/= fairness. Let's say I have a pen with my name on it (indicating it's clearly mine). Then let's say I'm in the first grade and my friend steals my pen and we get into a fight. The teacher comes over and takes the pen to resolve the dispute, which is the fairest option, after all, nobody gets the pen. However, this is not Justice, which would be me getting my pen back. Rooting a society in fairness over justice in this way does not create a good society. Life's not fair, nor should it be fair 100%, and conflating Justice with Fairness can lead to oppression: if one group has been oppressing a minority for some length of time in history, it'd only be fair when that minority group comes to power to oppress the majority back (we can see this with radical leftist rhetoric today), but it's not JUST. That's a flaw in this idea, Justice should NOT be rooted in fairness.

  75. Post
    Author
    Elouj Time Reaver

    Rawl's issue is that societies are not successful based on how they are intended, but rather how they are broken. A society for humans can never function well unless it is catered to humans. Humans are creatures with ambitions, and self interest, to try to ignore that is to doom the society to failure.

    Taking the corruptability of humanity into account, and gearing society so that the satisfaction of that corruptability is for the betterment of the society rather than its detriment, will be a much more just society. Justice is not to be better than human, justice is to be human for the better.

    It is somewhat sad that I got back so late to the punch, I would like to discuss this point more, but I am afraid it would be off topic as a response to most other comments.

  76. Post
    Author
  77. Post
    Author
  78. Post
    Author
  79. Post
    Author
    Jason rodriguez

    People arent and will never be perfect. The original position is a pointless thought, literally the same as "HEY WHAT IF EVERYONE WAS PERFECT"

  80. Post
    Author
    Lucas Rijana

    On Nussbaum: Rawls thought of justice in material terms EXACTLY because a super committee could never have nor SHOULD have effect on how people "respect" or "are nice" to each other. THAT, my friend, would be fascism.

  81. Post
    Author
    zeleni sok

    7:23 Of course it can't be made easily, Rawls basically goes on for hundreds of pages about the the reasoning around the original position. 7:38 This from here is simply false. His first work is theoretical and doesn't say how a just society would actually look in practice. Which was a huge disappointment, it was the Cold War, he was an esteemed academic, and a lot people were reading a book on justice more than five hundred pages long, expecting to see whether capitalism is better than communism, and the book doesn't give that kind of view. But in his restatement and summary, Rawls does answer this question. He lists five types of social systems: 1 laissez-faire capitalism, 2 welfare-state capitalism, 3 state socialism with a command economy, 4 property-owning democracy, and 5 liberal (democratic) socialism; saying that the first three violate justice, and the latter two are possible societies which satisfy the two principles of justice he posits.

  82. Post
    Author
    BigHenFor

    As a thought experiment, it was designed to argue the impossible. Pure objectivity is impossible: even our objectivity is subjective. The real question is whether we should stop trying to be objective about what constitutes a just society, and accept that this debate is and will be ongoing in every society. Societies are human artifacts, and like humans they must evolve to survive. So change and uncertainty will always be present. Each generation can only hope that they are not judged too harshly by history.

  83. Post
    Author
    3pharaohstowers

    No preconception, identity, knowledge or history are not the problem, the problem is a divisive class label and power structure, anyone entering will renounce all creeds of greed and divisiveness, you enter ungendered unclassed equall in equity as everyone else you take detailed assessments physical, mental, stress, skill, and endurance test and given a choice of placement that match your capacity within a safe and un overstress limit, no banking, debt, luxury, or selling all reasourcess are splitted by most needed and then distrubuted as individually needed, no addictions or obsessions, from there you may give your share free from intervention till it might harm another or oneself, no pessimism is valued, all opinion, creativity, and ingenuity must benifit another or the whole not oneself, all criticism and reviews are to be conscructive and benefiting not simply disparagement or hit pieces, anyone may join any other in consented agreement, all citizens are vitality tracked and profiled for safety and violence prevention psychological frequencies tracked to prevent self harm, criminal impulsivity, murder thought patterns, harassment, molestation or domestic violence, a detailed psychological profile for everyone that must share in confidence with possible partners and for parental rights and high stress job placements. Your not paid you work by choice to safe limits as part of whole no governing body every one shares constructive ideas and they are voted by the whole by majority and checked against bias then trial tested before implementation. Most capable tacticians oversee squads of drone non lethal border patrols

  84. Post
    Author
    Map Wolf

    I like the multiple perspectives. Society can be more flexible. It might be confusing for some people, but they can just ask, "Are you okay with this?" and other questions.

    For me, I think one of the biggest problem is the wealth inequality. It does seem ridiculous how some people are paid so little for the work they do. A person in a profession like in medicine may make significantly more, and I do appreciate the work they do and how they should be paid highly for their hard efforts. But some things are not mutually exclusive because we can still raise the wages for some entry (or no "skills" required) jobs so that people don't have to work for like 8 dollars an hour.

  85. Post
    Author
    Celina K

    13:13 something similar happened to A Series of Unfortunate Events, where the children not Olaf is supposed to be jewish

  86. Post
    Author
    a blockadia

    What I got from this video is, "If you haven't figured out that liberalism is a cult, designed to make oppressors feel good about themselves, then read John Rawls." Thanks now I know I don't have to read John Rawls.

  87. Post
    Author
  88. Post
    Author
  89. Post
    Author
    Justin Letchford

    Interesting, I was thinking of something similar for an idea I had for a book that's basically the opposite of 1984

  90. Post
    Author
  91. Post
    Author
    jose casillas

    There is a flaw, I think, with the original position. If the construction of a just society were left up to those who are under a veil of ignorance, and are constructing the most just society based on their moral convictions, does that mean we have to assume that they are perfect moral beings? I would imagine the creator of this just society would have to have a very long debate with Socrates on those things that can be considered objectively moral because if fairness is the goal, well your moral positions will determine what is fair to you, but it might not be the same from person to person. So even in an original position, it seems that there would still be some debate as to how to structure a society that is a fair. With an A.I, this becomes an even bigger problem, b/c what if the A.I thought that ridding ourselves of the least able and desirable in society (whatever segments of the population the A.I thinks those are), would actually benefit civilization. Of course, we as humans would be opposed to an intentional eradication of any human based solely on their characteristics (we think ethnic cleansing is a no, no for example). Even if A.I do not suffer from the limitations that stifle man's ability to arrive at ideal and objectively moral solutions to problems b/c of our sentient nature, their cold-hard analytics might cause them to arrive at a solution we as humans might find to be less than desirable based on our moral standards… Idk, that's my two cents.

  92. Post
    Author
    rcs300

    I understand the incentive with how we use the monetary system but this system has been used since before the egyptian days, this system where a group of powerful people distribute resources according to their agenda to the people who produce those resources; is a very old system of governing, how is it so hard to believe that we can not design a better system of governing society or a better system of motivational incentives ?

  93. Post
    Author
  94. Post
    Author
    Edward Lewis Paxton

    It isn't going to happen with the lying fossil's that claim we live in a free world, I mean justice in the hands of criminal's who claim they're immune to a law system no one is immune to is enough of a contradiction to lock them all up for war/environmental crime's. The pie is enough to share unless we carry on with the so called elite' on going disaster they call civil-isation that is inherently corrupt and mentally ill that they think it's acceptable.

  95. Post
    Author
    Eve Kohley

    so basically apoliticals should make the decisions… to be fair this is like usa jury duty. but yeah, wording in itself is biased.

  96. Post
    Author
    Brandon Jimenez

    #AMERICA HAS FORGOTTEN THE REASON WE HAVE HAD ALL THESE GREAT SOCIAL PROGRAMS GENERAL RELIEF FOOD STAMPS AND SO ON SO MANY OTHER PROGRAMS BECAUSE AMERICA AS ALWAYS SEEEN ITSELF AS THE AUTHORITY LIBERTY AND FREEDOM LIBERATING PEOPLE OUT OF SUPPRESSION
    AMERICANS SHOULD ASK THEMSELVES WHY IS IT THAT YEAR AFTER YEAR PROGRAMS AT BRING UP LIFT TO THE WHOLE NATION ARE BEING CUT DOWN AND CLOSE AND SAID TO THE COST OF FUNDING BUT YEAR AFTER YEAR THE MILITARY BUDGET INCREASES AND THIS IS NOT THE SALARY OF OUR SOLDIERS KEEP THAT IN MIND

    DECONSTRUCTION OF A GREAT SOCIETY IS THE EGO IN ALL HUMAN BEINGS EVEN THE IDEA OF TRYING TO CONSTRUCT THIS UTOPIA OF SOCIETY JUSTICE by the studies of etymology

  97. Post
    Author
    jeice13

    Even from a race realist view giving people equal opportunity would create the justified level of racial disparity anyway. It would mean you shouldnt force equity but it still doesnt justify skewed opportunity

  98. Post
    Author
    Elena Costa

    I cannot believe I have only just discovered this channel! And it's indescribable how happy I am! I watched every single Crash Course Mythology episode. It was a family event; we'd all gather around the screen and watch your lessons. So glad this channel exists, so sad I found it a bit late. But better late than never!

  99. Post
    Author
    Annemarie May

    Begin by abolishing the basis of current grossly unjust western society: the biolical family unit. Let people breed in accordance with state laws eg how many kids etc but take kids off them and make them all children of the state, regardless of how rich/poor, eminent or otherwise their genetic parents are. Treat them all equally. Same schooling, same clothes, same opportunity to develop any talents they show, same discipline, same access to rewards, fun, adult love etc. Biological parents should not be allowed to find their kids, nor kids to trace their genetic parentage so they can then start up all the family connection rot that forms the basis of all the trouble in Western society. Whilst this idea may sound like a form of totalitarian thinking eg Communism etc, it is not. Because it only applies to the aspect of a nation's life dealing with family matters. Taking the benefits of this idea further: if nobody owns the nation's kids as their family, but people can enjoy raising kids, loving them etc, such child lovers can take jobs helping raise the state's kids properly, in accordance with strict government laws etc re child welfare needs eg psychologically etc. Obviously, people wishing to be employed as official parents etc would need to be carefully screened and assessed, trained etc to ensure they are fit for such a job. And they would not get to pick and choose which kids or how many or which race or ge der kids etc they get. It would be a lottery draw set up, to ensure such family loving types don't ever get the power to start up their 'My great family' pride rot again, responsible for so much societal injustice that is at the hidden root of most of our western society problems eg violent crime etc. It would also help end all the trouble caused by political stuff eg feminism, racial pride/oppression, persecution and bullying of people who are somehow different eg exceptionally smart/talented, or have a disability etc. It would be great if the biolical family could be abolished because it would give certain Deprived people eg the older folk or people who cannot have babies but like kids, the chance to 'have children'. Meanwhile, the ones who love the 'people production PROCESS', but not the people nurturing/raising part eg like most young millennial mothers, I observe, the chance to, well, really 'have it all', without needing to pay the price of real mothering, which IS demanding, though a labour of love for those who love kids, which seems to be 'what women want', or most of the young millennial feminists, at least. If they genuinely love children, let them prove it. By either produci g them eg as single/married parents and then just hand them over to the state never to trace them again. Or by passing all the tests etc to apply for a job to be an official state parent, teacher etc and accept whatever kids the state lottery gives you, and subjecting yourself to regularly scheduled official government 'Performance Appraisals' etc to ensure you can o tinue to be an official state parent, just like in your career advancement/continuity on the job. Like, you might get too stressed or too elderly or you might develop some psychiatric illness etc that makes you no longer fit for the job. Or you may need some official parenting training that could be run by some Government welfare department eg Human Services in Australia, to show you the right way to raise various types of kids you may have been given in the lottery. Eg disabled kids. None of these people who are given such parent g jobs should ever be allowed to have more than one kid of a particular race, gender, level of ability/disability etc. To ensure the system is not used to promote certain political ideologies eg feminism, Multiculturalism, black/white/Asian etc type supremacists etc. The goal is to remove the biggest barrier to social equality in the West:the idea of the biological family being in any way important. Because this is what gives some kids a great start in life, at the expense of others equally or even smarter, more talented etc who must miss out. It is largely a lottery scenario. Therefore, the social injustice this current biological family scene sets up and all its hate, evil, envy, spite, violence, fighting etc it engenders as kids grow up priveleged ie powerful or underprivileged ie angry, violent, rebellious etc can best be addressed by reversing the entire process. By abolishing the current family lottery that sets you up for a crap or great future, based on who your parents were. And replaces it with a more equitable family background lottery system: the parents you were given when the state lottery farmed you out at birth. This may displease the few powerful, affluent kids/parents and those who cater to them eg rich high fee charging prestigious educational institutions. But these are only a minuscule section of society. I am sure that the great majority not in the priveleged category would love to be relieved of all the numerous kinds of stress, trouble and Strife caused in many different ways and all attributable to this idea of 'my family'. Be it the prisoners serving time to the stressed out working mother trying to 'have it all' or the sad older woman who missed out on kids she wanted, for whatever reason. Oh, sorry, men, too, let's not be female sexiest about the people production business. Evidently, men have feelings, too. If you happen to be a black or coloured baby and you got randomly allocated to any colour parents who could only have one kid of your racial type, it helps break down racist attitudes. Races cannot team up as kids and learn how to gang up on and attack people of other races, like you see in places like Africa, the US and right here in lovely, racially tolerant??? Melbourne, Australia, with racially motivated coloured mobs and gangs attacking each other armed with knives, swords, machetes etc on the streets and even doing home invasions now.

  100. Post
    Author
    Michael Bauer

    This presents the philosophy of Rawls as more statist and focused on economics than it is – lets remember his principles of justice:

    1 – Maximum Equal Liberty – Every person has an equal right to the maximal set of liberties that is compatible with that same set of liberties being held by everyone else. (This clearly includes equal rights and liberties regardless of ethnicity, skin color, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity)

    2 – Bottom up Difference Making – Inequalities (like higher taxes for high earners, or lower taxation for building affordable housing… or the increased rights of police officers or fire brigade workers on duty compared to ordinary citizens) must be arranged so that they a) provide the greatest benefit to the least advantaged and b) there has to be equality of opportunity to take any position to which inequalities are attached.

    These principles alone (as well as the motivation and idea behind his proposed methods of reflection and the concrete liberalism he advocates in Political Liberalism as well as *A Theory of Justice*) I think show that his position is less statist and affirmative of the then current political system in the US than this video makes it seem. Slavery certainly wouldn't be compatible with either an outcome of seeking reflective equilibrium from the original position or his principles of justice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *