• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

John Rawls on How to Design a Society

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Suppose one bright and sunny day the Goddess of Ethics, Morals, Principles, and Losing Politicians appeared to you with a request. She has created a computer game that is finished in every which way except for one. She has not yet designed the political, economic, and social structure of the society in the game. She'd like you to help her with that.

Now, to be precise, all she wants from you are a few general principles to guide her in designing the society. Specifically, she wants you to come up with some rules that will make the society's distribution of wealth, goods, services, and benefits fair and just for all players. Once you give her the general ideas or principles, she'll take the rest of it from there.

But before you can get started, she adds two more details. First, once the game is completed, you yourself will get to play it.

Second, you cannot know ahead of time -- while you're helping her to design the game -- which character you will play. That means, you cannot know what your future character's share of the society's wealth, goods, services, and benefits will be. You've got to design the rules or principles according to which those things will be shared or distributed -- but blind to what your own share or distribution of them will be.

John Rawls

If the above actually happened, you could pretty darn sure the Goddess had been reading John Rawls. Rawls was an American philosopher and he came up with more or less the very same challenge as the Goddess did -- only he applied the challenge to the design of any real society, rather than to the design of a computer game.

Rawls wanted to do more than just design a society. He wanted to design a fair and just society. And he wanted to do it in a way that any rational, impartial person could agree was fair and just.

In other words, Rawls wanted to cook up a society that was arguably the most rational design if you were aiming for a fair and just society.

Rawls' "Original Position" Scenario

Which is all nice and dandy, but how then can Rawls guarantee his design is the "most rational design"? And that's where his "Original Position" scenario comes in.

What if you were asked to create the rules for the distribution of a society's wealth, goods, services, and benefits, a society you knew you would have to live in someday, but your starting position -- your "original position" -- was that you knew absolutely nothing about who or what you would be in that society? Wouldn't that encourage you to design a society that was fair and just for everyone? That way, no matter who or what you ended up being in that society, the society would be structured in a way that was fair and just to you.

In philosophical terms, Rawls was what is called a "social contract theorist". Rawls -- like another philosopher, Immanuel Kant -- believed humans have the intellectual capacity to rationally judge principles of ethics, justice, fairness, and so forth in an impartial manner.

But he was suspicious of people's willingness to be impartial when they themselves could see an advantage to skewing the rules in their own favor. Hence, Rawls' original position scenario in which you are are asked to design the society behind a "veil of ignorance" so that it's impossible to tailor the design to your own advantage. He describes that veil as a situation in which:

"...no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities."​

According to Rawls, the designers, working behind a veil of ignorance, would adopt a strategy of maximizing the prospects of the least well off while simultaneously structuring the society in a manner that was fair and just to all. At least they would if they were rational.

Going Beyond the Original Position

If you wish to check out the principles that Rawls himself came up with for the design of a society, you can find them discussed in this thread: John Rawls on the Fair and Just Society

Questions

What do you make of Rawls' original position scenario? Is it a useful thought-experiment for helping people to come up with fair and just rules for the distribution of a society's resources and benefits? Is there a better way to go about such a task?

If you were asked to design a society from a Rawlsian original position, what rules or principles for the distribution of resources and benefits would you come up with?
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Meh in a perfect world where ALL the players played by the same rules.....sure


But that's not the case. There is always that one (yeah right most people nowadays) looking for an edge. If not flat out breaking the rules than bending them for sure just to get a head of the game. And when one person does it, another person sees that and says "Hey, if he can bend/break the rules, why can't I?" And so like a plague it spreads exponentially and you still wind up with corruption.

Corruption, it's what humans crave!
Screenshot_20181224-042653~2.png
 

PureX

Veteran Member
In philosophical terms, Rawls was what is called a "social contract theorist". Rawls -- like another philosopher, Immanuel Kant -- believed humans have the intellectual capacity to rationally judge principles of ethics, justice, fairness, and so forth in an impartial manner.
Is it logical to claim that we "have the capacity" if we do not have the will to exercise it? Is "capacity" defined only by our possessing the requisite knowledge? Even if that knowledge is being rendered useless by an incapacitating unwillingness to employ it? I am asking this as a serious question.
What do you make of Rawls' original position scenario? Is it a useful thought-experiment for helping people to come up with fair and just rules for the distribution of a society's resources and benefits? Is there a better way to go about such a task?
I think it's too abstract and complicated for most people. I would suggest reasoning more along the lines of "as goes the well-being of our fellows, so goes our own". People are more likely to listen to, and to assimilate concepts that directly impact their own well-being. It's the reason most of us learn to care about the well-being of our family, and friends. But, unfortunately, that concern has not spread to our neighbors, or to our communities, or to our nation as a whole. We have not learned to see ourselves as members of this extended 'family' to a degree that we would see that their well-being directly effects and impacts ours.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Meh in a perfect world where ALL the players played by the same rules.....sure


But that's not the case. There is always that one (yeah right most people nowadays) looking for an edge. If not flat out breaking the rules than bending them for sure just to get a head of the game. And when one person does it, another person sees that and says "Hey, if he can bend/break the rules, why can't I?" And so like a plague it spreads exponentially and you still wind up with corruption.

Corruption, it's what humans crave!
View attachment 26140
See you have already identified one facet that is counter to fairness. Specifically cheating and corruption. It seems that you would suggest that it is unfair to reward people who are taking advantage of the system.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Is it logical to claim that we "have the capacity" if we do not have the will to exercise it? Is "capacity" defined only by our possessing the requisite knowledge? Even if that knowledge is being rendered useless by an incapacitating unwillingness to employ it?
We jave the capacity to reason and we do in fact reason. That we ignore reason to favor self dealing does not mean we lack the capacity to reason.
I am asking this as a serious question.
I think it's too abstract and complicated for most people. I would suggest reasoning more along the lines of "as goes the well-being of our fellows, so goes our own". People are more likely to listen to, and to assimilate concepts that directly impact their own well-being. It's the reason most of us learn to care about the well-being of our family, and friends. But, unfortunately, that concern has not spread to our neighbors, or to our communities, or to our nation as a whole. We have not learned to see ourselves as members of this extended 'family' to a degree that we would see that their well-being directly effects and impacts ours.

This is the point of the veil of ignorance. We can use our propensity towards self dealing to create what is fair. It is the ultimate game or she cuts the cookie but you choose.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
We have the capacity to reason and we do in fact reason. That we ignore reason to favor self dealing does not mean we lack the capacity to reason.
It seems to be a semantic difference, only. How capable is a "capacity" that cannot be effectively employed?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
If you were asked to design a society from a Rawlsian original position, what rules or principles for the distribution of resources and benefits would you come up with
Well, I think that our first inclination might be towards the idea of reaping the fruits of our own labor. I can think of no better place to start than to suggest that if a person works toward an end successfully they should get to enjoy the fruit of their success. But, if one continuously fails, they should still not lack what is sufficient to survive.

Next my mind would turn towards how my/our pursuits ought to be or ought not be constrained.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
It seems to be a semantic difference, only. How capable is a "capacity" that cannot be effectively employed?
I think you are missing my point. We are capable of reasoning. And we do in fact reason. So the capacity is effectively employed.

What is not employed is subsequent action in accordance with that reasoning.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I think you are missing my point. We are capable of reasoning. And we do in fact reason. So the capacity is effectively employed.

What is not employed is subsequent action in accordance with that reasoning.
I disagree.

"Reason" refers to pretty much any thought process that follows logically from "a" to "b". And that would include "self-dealing" just as it would include "other-dealing". It's not the reasoning that's lacking, it's the unwillingness to apply it effectively to a consistent, positive end. The thought behind my question is that perhaps humans are not capable of employing reason to attain such ends. In which case reason is not the "capable" possibility that it's being assumed to be. Perhaps it's capabilities are limited to and by the momentary whims and desires of the humans engaging in it. If this is the case, then the solution would need to be something far different than anything involving collective reasoning. Maybe we need to build a machine that can reason without those human limitations, and allow it to dictate the course of human culture. Who knows?
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
See you have already identified one facet that is counter to fairness. Specifically cheating and corruption. It seems that you would suggest that it is unfair to reward people who are taking advantage of the system.

For one man to feast another must famish.

There will always be cheaters and corruption. (Feasting)

Therefore there will always be the downtrodden and stepped upon. (Famished)

End corruption, only then can everyone be treated fair.

This is all my opinion. Needless to say.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
For one man to feast another must famish.

There will always be cheaters and corruption. (Feasting)

Therefore there will always be the downtrodden and stepped upon. (Famished)

End corruption, only then can everyone be treated fair.

This is all my opinion. Needless to say.
So you believe that it is impossible to ever reach complete fairness. That does mot mean that we cannot strive towards that goal amd create a more fair system than we would otherwise.
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
Seems like Rawls "Original Position" is trying to run around the Beatitudes, when properly discerned, from the "Sermon on the Mount."
 

Audie

Veteran Member
For one man to feast another must famish.

There will always be cheaters and corruption. (Feasting)

Therefore there will always be the downtrodden and stepped upon. (Famished)

End corruption, only then can everyone be treated fair.

This is all my opinion. Needless to say.

Economics is not a zero sum game.
Your feast / famine simply is not so.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Suppose one bright and sunny day the Goddess of Ethics, Morals, Principles, and Losing Politicians appeared to you with a request. She has created a computer game that is finished in every which way except for one. She has not yet designed the political, economic, and social structure of the society in the game. She'd like you to help her with that.

Now, to be precise, all she wants from you are a few general principles to guide her in designing the society. Specifically, she wants you to come up with some rules that will make the society's distribution of wealth, goods, services, and benefits fair and just for all players. Once you give her the general ideas or principles, she'll take the rest of it from there.

But before you can get started, she adds two more details. First, once the game is completed, you yourself will get to play it.

Second, you cannot know ahead of time -- while you're helping her to design the game -- which character you will play. That means, you cannot know what your future character's share of the society's wealth, goods, services, and benefits will be. You've got to design the rules or principles according to which those things will be shared or distributed -- but blind to what your own share or distribution of them will be.

John Rawls

If the above actually happened, you could pretty darn sure the Goddess had been reading John Rawls. Rawls was an American philosopher and he came up with more or less the very same challenge as the Goddess did -- only he applied the challenge to the design of any real society, rather than to the design of a computer game.

Rawls wanted to do more than just design a society. He wanted to design a fair and just society. And he wanted to do it in a way that any rational, impartial person could agree was fair and just.

In other words, Rawls wanted to cook up a society that was arguably the most rational design if you were aiming for a fair and just society.

Rawls' "Original Position" Scenario

Which is all nice and dandy, but how then can Rawls guarantee his design is the "most rational design"? And that's where his "Original Position" scenario comes in.

What if you were asked to create the rules for the distribution of a society's wealth, goods, services, and benefits, a society you knew you would have to live in someday, but your starting position -- your "original position" -- was that you knew absolutely nothing about who or what you would be in that society? Wouldn't that encourage you to design a society that was fair and just for everyone? That way, no matter who or what you ended up being in that society, the society would be structured in a way that was fair and just to you.

In philosophical terms, Rawls was what is called a "social contract theorist". Rawls -- like another philosopher, Immanuel Kant -- believed humans have the intellectual capacity to rationally judge principles of ethics, justice, fairness, and so forth in an impartial manner.

But he was suspicious of people's willingness to be impartial when they themselves could see an advantage to skewing the rules in their own favor. Hence, Rawls' original position scenario in which you are are asked to design the society behind a "veil of ignorance" so that it's impossible to tailor the design to your own advantage. He describes that veil as a situation in which:

"...no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities."​

According to Rawls, the designers, working behind a veil of ignorance, would adopt a strategy of maximizing the prospects of the least well off while simultaneously structuring the society in a manner that was fair and just to all. At least they would if they were rational.

Going Beyond the Original Position

If you wish to check out the principles that Rawls himself came up with for the design of a society, you can find them discussed in this thread: John Rawls on the Fair and Just Society

Questions

What do you make of Rawls' original position scenario? Is it a useful thought-experiment for helping people to come up with fair and just rules for the distribution of a society's resources and benefits? Is there a better way to go about such a task?

If you were asked to design a society from a Rawlsian original position, what rules or principles for the distribution of resources and benefits would you come up with?

I expect a lot of us have tried to think
of how to achieve an ideal society.

It may be that the chance to ever do that
was lost when we took the creature who
evolved as an smart ape with ape social
structures, and then suddenly we are no
longer eating termites and throwing rocks
at the baboons.

I doubt ape society is just and wonderful,
but that is what we are "designed" for.
Stratified, competitive, cooperative,
ageist, sexist, and suspicious of
outsiders. Led by an alpha male.

A lot of people have come up with
what they thought would be ideals,
and tried to impose them.

I might encourage the angel to leave
us alone, and not be making things
worse.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I expect a lot of us have tried to think
of how to achieve an ideal society.

It may be that the chance to ever do that
was lost when we took the creature who
evolved as an smart ape with ape social
structures, and then suddenly we are no
longer eating termites and throwing rocks
at the baboons.

I doubt ape society is just and wonderful,
but that is what we are "designed" for.
Stratified, competitive, cooperative,
ageist, sexist, and suspicious of
outsiders. Led by an alpha male.

A lot of people have come up with
what they thought would be ideals,
and tried to impose them.

I might encourage the angel to leave
us alone, and not be making things
worse.
This is all true, but I think there is another possible factor that comes with the self-awareness exemplified by your very post.

If we can see that this is what we are, we can also see that we might be otherwise. And so we might become, otherwise, with intent and effort. We don't know if this is possible, but we don't know that it isn't. And I think that's where this thread is beginning ... in asking how else we might choose to live together, and to see ourselves in the world.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
This is all true, but I think there is another possible factor that comes with the self-awareness exemplified by your very post.

If we can see that this is what we are, we can also see that we might be otherwise. And so we might become, otherwise, with intent and effort. We don't know if this is possible, but we don't know that it isn't. And I think that's where this thread is beginning ... in asking how else we might choose to live together, and to see ourselves in the world.

We can feel our way into the future, but designing eutopia,
no.

That old law of unintended consequences, along
with law of averages, diminishing returns etc,
wont go away.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
I like Rawls' approach. It's a difficult model to teach; I included it in courses on ethics and sustainability. I likened it (on at least one occasion, and it seemed to work with that group) to knowing you were to be dropped into an already-in-progress game of Monopoly, replacing one of the 10 players.

Would you prefer to be dropped in near the beginning of the game, where everyone is nearly equal and has equal opportunity? Or late in the game, when one player has it almost all sown up, owning everything except Baltic and Mediterranean and the Electric Utility...or in the middle where the one you replace might already be doing better or worse than the others...

While most would prefer to drop into the game late and in the role of the person who's well ahead, everyone realized that to enter the game late meant a high likelihood of being in a bad position, even being eliminated already.

They realized that they would rather drop into the game early on, while everyone was still relatively equal in resources and possibilities...
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
If you were asked to design a society from a Rawlsian original position, what rules or principles for the distribution of resources and benefits would you come up with?

Here are the main points I'd put in place:

- universal healthcare
- affordable, decent housing and food
- meaningful education through high school (including vocational training)
- aid for the disabled
- a shovel for the unemployed (the opportunity for decent pay for a humane day's work)
- a graduated tax code with no deductions or loopholes
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If you were asked to design a society from a Rawlsian original position, what rules or principles for the distribution of resources and benefits would you come up with?

I would choose rules that maximize human freedom, equality, economic opportunity, safety, and self-development. We already know what those would be more or less just by looking at America of the mid-20th century and America today. We're talking about returning to a liberal, democratic, socialistic, progressive society with a government that concerns itself with the welfare of ordinary people.

I'd much rather be born into a world where I have a pretty good chance of having what I need to pursue happiness than one where 1 in 20 acquire more wealth, power, and privilege than they need, and the other 19 have to scramble for the crumbs. I was born into such a world, and benefited from it, but that world is gone now.
 
Top