We have been reading three ideas of what a society needs to be like:
Marx, "To each according to his needs and from each according to his abilities."
The government needs to be very big, and capitalism must have fallen.
Rawls' main point is that to decide what is just in a society, a thought experiment must be done imagining people behind "the veil of ignorance". A group of people must imagine themselves as the lowest possible status of people in a society and try to make everything the best possible for them.
Nozick is under the view that government must be the smallest it possibly can and that when injustice occurs it must be decided where the possession of entitlement went wrong.
Each idea these men have is aimed towards the idea of a fair and just society. There are some obvious contradictions when comparing each philosophers' view: Nozick's entire entitlement theory is based on the concept of private property, something that Marx would disagree ought to be taken into account due to private property perpetuating injustice in a society. Rawls' veil of ignorance theory is how to effectively set up a government much more involved than Nozick would agree with. We have been discussing so many different theories of justice, so what are the similarities between them? As mentioned in class today, while some differences are obvious and extreme, there can still be common ground. As Dr. Johnson mentioned, sometimes we see the 99% and the tea party critique the same things.
Marx and Rawls both have similar interest in the lowest class of people in a society. Marx is more extreme: everyone needs everything they need, but Rawls still writes that behind the veil of ignorance the lowest class needs the best situation possible for them. It is a common theme when looking at how a society will be ideal, the class gap must be as small as possible. We went through the thought experiment of Nozick's today of where inevitably all types of societies end in a gap, this is unequal but is it unjust? Does Nozick's societal mind game really conflict as much as it would seem with Marx and Rawls? There is no direct harm inflicted on the lower class, and if taking the entitlement is justified it still fits with Nozick's claims.
So the main question I am trying to figure out is: what are the similar things each man wants in a society? Would these ideals hold true for any thought experiment or ideal? Are there things that regardless of what someone things a government must do stay universal?
I think it is important to remember that it is impossible to act as a truly objective observer. Each of these philosophers are subjectively observing the world and drawing different conclusions. Therefore, it makes sense that the Occupy and Tea Party movements would seem similar or the same in many aspects, because members of both are looking at the exact same thing and critiquing it. I think most of us are having the same problems with these theories as we had with Kant's theory of justice, namely we approve of the main point, but we were jumping and leaping for any attempt to justify any preconceived notions we had on the matter--for instance the idea that we all believe it is just to harm another in defense of oneself, even though this would violate the categorical imperative. We are operating with preconceived notions based on the outcomes of a bastardized conglomerate of these theories that is the United States currently and attempting to justify the things we think are good instead of maybe questioning that which think is good.
ReplyDeleteA perfect example of this is the idea that I completely disagree with the abolition of private property, not because I am well off in any way (privileged, sure, but not rich), but because of my distrust of government to wield such absolute power. Therefore, I agree with Nozick's thoughts that the best government is that which governs minimally. Each of these philosophers is attempting to create the perfectly just society. Each one is coming to a different conclusion from different vantage points, however they are all working with a fundamentally identical world.
I think often times people expect a lot out of society that cannot be provided for everyone. Obviously everyone cannot be rich and have everything that they think they deserve or want. However, it is still possible and should be necessary that society allows everyone the basic needs in order to live a more comfortable life. I agree with James that the government should govern as little as possible outside of providing people with the basic needs because the government would inevitably become too powerful and restrict people.
ReplyDeleteThese viewpoints, as James pointed out, are coming from different perspectives and different points of time, and the only way to look at a just society is to take in ideals from the surroundings you are in. I do not think that these ideas could be used universally because the world is full of such diverse systems and people. We would need to find out which of these ideas fit into our society specifically.