tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4978426466915379555.post4601769736021631175..comments2022-04-03T17:42:26.625-04:00Comments on Formal Methods in Political Philosophy: Rawls' A THEORY OF JUSTICE First InstallmentRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4978426466915379555.post-40327931589251907092010-07-05T17:51:33.238-04:002010-07-05T17:51:33.238-04:00Right now, I feel like the Roadrunner, after he ha...Right now, I feel like the Roadrunner, after he has raced fifty feet beyond the cliff edge and suddenly notices there is nothing underneath him. I am also writing and posting my Memoirs at a mad pace [450 pages since the beginning of April!] All of this is exhilarating but exhausting. In about two or three weeks, I am going to have to pause and catch my breath. At that point, I will welcome suggestions and discussion [as I do now, of course]. This is a bit like my first teaching job, at Harvard, after getting my doctorate in philosophy, when I found myself teaching the history of Europe from Caesar to napoleon, despite never having taken a history course of any sort beyond my junior year in high school. I stayed a century ahead of the students and prayed.<br />A propos the method of reflective equilibrium, I am less enamored of it than some people, for reasons I discuss at length in my book [this entire blog, I now realize, is a shameless excuse to shill for my books! Oh well, live and learn.]Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4978426466915379555.post-35303759773360155472010-07-05T15:56:54.285-04:002010-07-05T15:56:54.285-04:00Problems of the author/critic type don't just ...Problems of the author/critic type don't just bother Rawls -- Gauthier runs face-first into them as well, for similar reasons. Think of these cases as two criticisms of political philosophical systems for the price of one.<br /><br />It should be said that there are many virtues to Rawls' book and project -- the method of reflective equillibrium, some important observations about the structure of political theories and how they should interact with personal morality -- which don't feature in the bit of his book where he harnesses some formal methods. Rawls is by no means the only philosopher with aspirations for formal proofs where the brunt of the work gets done in the margins (give me half a chance and I'll tell you about Gibbard's meta-ethics and how his use of decision theory is using a little bit of butter for a whole lot of bread).<br /><br />Prof Wolff, you're running through your material at quite some speed -- any thought to continuing on with more material after you've finished your original run?Marinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13492009758043047531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4978426466915379555.post-19591966266634554362010-07-05T14:17:33.994-04:002010-07-05T14:17:33.994-04:00I see; I didn't understand your example. I gue...I see; I didn't understand your example. I guess I was assuming that there was some spectrum of possible libel systems in which Britain and America represented the extremes. If this were the case, then you could bargain for an intermediate position. But the situation as you described it is one where there are two discreet choices, one that favors one group and the other the other. Yes, I see how that would be a real problem for Rawls and something that would probably happen often.J.Vlasitshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10340794410334308312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4978426466915379555.post-88595015503604988222010-07-05T13:05:53.675-04:002010-07-05T13:05:53.675-04:00Hmm. You may be right. It may indeed be a bad ex...Hmm. You may be right. It may indeed be a bad example. But then again, maybe not. Rawls is, I think, trying to capture the notion of a Pareto partial ordering, with all parties preferring a greater liberty [compatible with a like liberty for all] rather than a lesser liberty. But faced with the choice between the British and American systems of libel laws, there could be no unanimous agreement that either was preferable to the other, since each system advantages one group to the disadvantage of the other. So we are left with a situation that cannot be handled by a unanimous agreement. Am I missing something?Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4978426466915379555.post-54580613609604841792010-07-05T12:44:16.900-04:002010-07-05T12:44:16.900-04:00I find your authors/critics example rather puzzlin...I find your authors/critics example rather puzzling since, from the way that you described it, the quantity of liberty for each is (in the simple case) strictly opposed. Therefore, shouldn't they, when the come to bargain, each be willing to give up some of their liberty? Rather than a counter-example, this seems to me to be exactly the sort of situation Rawls has in mind. The real problem would come in if there were truly incommensurable amounts of liberty, which I take to be the case most of the time.J.Vlasitshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10340794410334308312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4978426466915379555.post-67207661292524255662010-07-05T11:45:39.637-04:002010-07-05T11:45:39.637-04:00As I see it, the notion of the Original Position i...As I see it, the notion of the Original Position is a striking and suggestive way of capturing what other authors have described as impartiality or disinterestedness or The Moral Point of View. One of the things it does rather forcefully is to make us think through what that really involves. Thus, if being disinterested [or neutral or "objective"] means setting aside our knowledge of who we are and what we want as individuals, then clearly as disinterested persons we can have no desires or aims or intentions. The comparison with judges merely adjudicating cases beought before them captures this.<br /><br />Rawls' problem, as I indicate, is that disinterested persons can have no motive for bargaining, unless you reintroduce some purposes or preferences or goals into their mental machinery.<br /><br />This, by the way, is why Kant in the GROUNDWORK was forced to introduce the notion of Objective Ends or Ends in Themselves, having ruled out all heterogeneous willing.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4978426466915379555.post-15460585259763316152010-07-05T09:23:09.812-04:002010-07-05T09:23:09.812-04:00Do you think there is no justification of the Orig...Do you think there is no justification of the Original Position than aesthetic preference then? Or do you think it has some weight apart from Rawls' arguments?John S. Wilkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04417266986565803683noreply@blogger.com