中国古代名妓
What's a Fair Start?
Today, we turn to the question of distributive justice. How should income in wealth
and power and opportunities be distributed? According to what principles? John
Rawls offers a detailed answer to that question. And we're going to examine and
asss his answer to that question, today.
We put ourlves in a position to do so last time. By trying to make n of why he
thinks that principles of justice are best derived from a hypothetical contract. And
天麻丸what matters is that the hypothetical contract be carried out in an original position of
equality, behind, what Rawls calls, the veil of ignorance. So that much is clear?
Alright, then let's turn to the principles that Rawls says would be chon behind the
听故事睡觉veil of ignorance.
First, he considered some of the major alternatives. What about utilitarianism? Would
the people in the original position choo to govern their collective lives utilitarian
principles, the greatest good for the greatest number? No, they wouldn't, Rawls says.
And the reason is, that behind the veil of ignorance, everyone knows that once the veil
goes up, and real life begins.
他的组词
We will each want to be respected with dignity. Even if we turn out to be a member of
a minority, we don't want to be oppresd. And so we would agree to reject
utilitarianism, and instead to adopt as our first principle, equal basic liberties.
Fundamental rights to freedom of speech, freedom of asmbly, religious liberty,
freedom of conscience and the like. We wouldn't want to take the chance that we
would wind up as members of an oppresd or a despid minority with the majority
tyrannizing over us. And so Rawls says utilitarianism would be rejected.
"Utilitarianism makes the mistake", Rawls writes, "of forgetting, or at least not takin
riously, the distinction between persons." And in the original position behind the
veil of ignorance, we would recognize that and reject utilitarianism. We wouldn't trade
off our fundamental rights and liberties for any economic advantages. That's the first
principle.
Second principle has to do with social and economic inequalities. What would we
agree to? Remember, we don't know whether we're going to wind up being rich or
poor. Healthy or unhealthy. We don't know what kind of family we're going to come
from. Whether we're going to inherit millions or whether we will come from an
impoverished family. So we might, at first thought, say, "Well, let's require an equal
distribution of income and wealth." Just to be on the safe side. But then we would
realize, that we could do better than that. Even if we're unlucky and wind up at the
bottom. We could do better if we agree to a qualified principle of equality. Rawls calls
it "the Difference Principle." A principle that says, only tho social and economic
inequalities will be permitted that work to the benefit of the least well off. So we 摘葡萄
wouldn't reject all inequality of income and wealth. We would allow some. But the
test would be, do they work to the benefit of everyone including tho, or as he
specifies, the principle, especially tho at the bottom. Only tho inequalities would
be accepted behind the veil of ignorance. And so Rawls argues, only tho inequalities
that work to the benefit of the least well off, are just.
We talked about the examples of Michael Jordan making 31 million dollars a year, of
赔偿协议
Bill Gates having a fortune in the tens of billions. Would tho inequalities be
permitted under the difference principle? Only if they were part of a system, tho
wage differentials, that actually work to the advantage of least well off. Well, what
五谷指的是哪五种粮食would that system be? Maybe it turns out that as a practical matter you have to
provide incentives to attract the right people to certain jobs. And when you do,
having tho people in tho jobs will actually help tho at the bottom. Strictly
speaking, Rawls's argument for the difference principle is that it would be chon
behind the veil of ignorance.
Let me hear what you think about Rawls's claim that the two principles would be
chon behind the veil of ignorance. Is there anyone who disagrees that they would be
肺卫
chon? Alright, let's start up in the balcony, if that's alright.
