07-11-2004 07:33									#61
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker So what DO they believe?

They believe that the institutions of our society, as they have existed for centuries (some more and some less) are on the whole good. They would want to avoid wholesale change for change's sake.

As for conservative principles of justice, in a North American setting, some of them would be equality before the law, the right to property, fundamental human rights that the state may not trample on, etc.

None of these require one to be religious to accept as good things for our society to preserve and to continue.

	07-11-2004 07:36									#62
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: They believe that the institutions of our society, as they have existed for centuries (some more and some less) are on the whole good. They would want to avoid wholesale change for change's sake.

This is an irrelevant question. As they say, they are on the whole good. But what makes them good, and what accounts for the exceptions. That is the principle they need to supply.

quote: As for conservative principles of justice, in a North American setting, some of them would be equality before the law, the right to property, fundamental human rights that the state may not trample on, etc.

Yes, we know. But what is the grounding of such rights?

quote: None of these require one to be religious to accept as good things for our society to preserve and to continue.

It does if you want to justify them in any meaningful sense. At least in every case I've ever heard.

	07-11-2004 07:40									#63
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Agathon This is an irrelevant question. As they say, they are on the whole good. But what makes them good, and what accounts for the exceptions. That is the principle they need to supply. Yes, we know. But what is the grounding of such rights?

Empiracism. They work. They should be continued.

quote: It does if you want to justify them in any meaningful sense. At least in every case I've ever heard.

Tell me, are you religious? Do you require religion to believe in the right to a fair trial?

	07-11-2004 07:42									#64
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: What's wrong with having your principle of justice rely on religious belief? The problem is that it's unprovable and relies on faith.

Not defending principles of justice totally based on religion, but doesn't Rawlsian theory have similar critiques . After all, you can't really prove what people in a veil of ignorance situation would agree to and the faith part of it is the equal, veil of ignorance decision making. That they would decide in such a way.

Also Why does it have to be equal? Why is the veil important (ie, why can't individual interests be important)? What does Rawls' experiment have to do with reality in any way?

You need more to simply discredit religion based justice theories than they rely on faith and are unprovable .

	07-11-2004 07:47									#65
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I should say that I can see the benefits of both Conservatism and Liberalism. If it is possible, I would be both. Our society is fundamentally sound and therefore the principles on which it is built should be preserved. However, there are ways that we could improve. Therefore we should make incremental improvements so long as they can be reconciled with what has been good in the past.

For instance, gay rights. To me this is simply the extention of the principles our society is built on to a newly recognised group. To me, being in favour of gay marriage is not inconsistent with Conservatism, but then again my Conservatism has nothing to do with religion.

	07-11-2004 07:49									#66
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Empiracism. They work. They should be continued.

Um. Science can't discover values NYE. If it could, we wouldn't disagree about them.

quote: Tell me, are you religious? Do you require religion to believe in the right to a fair trial?

Way to miss the point there...

quote: After all, you can't really prove what people in a veil of ignorance situation would agree to and the faith part of it is the equal, veil of ignorance decision making. That they would decide in such a way. Also Why does it have to be equal? Why is the veil important (ie, why can't individual interests be important)? What does Rawls' experiment have to do with reality in any way?

It has to be equal because Rawls' thought experiment is simply a picturesque way of stating the Kantian categorical imperative: treat others as ends in themselves rather than means to your own ends. We can understand this by imagining ourselves in the shoes of others. If I put myself in anothers shoes, I adopt the point of view of someone as an end in themselves.

quote: You need more to simply discredit religion based justice theories than they rely on faith and are unprovable

Oh.. there's more. They are absurd.

	07-11-2004 07:53									#67
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Um. Science can't discover values NYE. If it could, we wouldn't disagree about them.

One may certainly observe that the principles of our society have led to a good society and conclude that we should therefore preserve those principles.

Feel free to switch in values for principles if you wish. It does not change the fact that you are asking what Conservatism is based on, and I am giving you an answer.

	07-11-2004 07:53									#68
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Rawls' thought experiment is simply a picturesque way of stating the Kantian categorical imperative: treat others as ends in themselves rather than means to your own ends. We can understand this by imagining ourselves in the shoes of others. If I put myself in anothers shoes, I adopt the point of view of someone as an end in themselves.

While that is nice and all, how is it provable? You have to take Rawls on faith that this is how people would react. Maybe they'd take another course of action?

Secondly, yes, it is a thought experiment, but you have to take it on faith that it has any connection to reality.

Like my prof said, in order for Rawl's Theory of Justice to work for you, you have to 'buy' the experiment.

	07-11-2004 07:59									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

eye for an eye justice

	07-11-2004 08:00									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: One may certainly observe that the principles of our society have led to a good society and conclude that we should therefore preserve those principles.

Without some idea of what counts as good, you can't make this judgement. And if you give another laundry list, the original question arises, what makes these things good?

quote: While that is nice and all, how is it provable? You have to take Rawls on faith that this is how people would react. Maybe they'd take another course of action? Secondly, yes, it is a thought experiment, but you have to take it on faith that it has any connection to reality. Like my prof said, in order for Rawl's Theory of Justice to work for you, you have to 'buy' the experiment.

Then your prof doesn't understand the experiment. It's a picturesque way of illustrating the Kantian principle (although Kant would disagree with his method of application).

quote: Secondly, yes, it is a thought experiment, but you have to take it on faith that it has any connection to reality.

You don't have to take it on faith at all. Fundamental moral principles are not contingent, so they operate in every logically possible situation, including the veil of ignorance.

Fundamental moral principles are not tied to contingent circumstance. If they are, they are merely hypothetical imperatives, and you generate a regress.

	07-11-2004 08:04									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Then your prof doesn't understand the experiment. It's a picturesque way of illustrating the Kantian principle (although Kant would disagree with his method of application).

I think he understands it very well. If you don't buy into the precepts, then you won't buy into his conclusion. It's a quite obvious statement.

quote: You don't have to take it on faith at all. Fundamental moral principles are not contingent, so they operate in every logically possible situation, including the veil of ignorance. Fundamental moral principles are not tied to contingent circumstance. If they are, they are merely hypothetical imperatives, and you generate a regress.

In the end a fundamental moral principle has to have some connection to reality or else it ends up being useless, since morals are how we should live.

	07-11-2004 08:11									#72
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: I think he understands it very well. If you don't buy into the precepts, then you won't buy into his conclusion. It's a quite obvious statement.

Not really. Arguing against the Kantian principle is not arguing against Rawls. A separate argument is required. Your prof seems like a dime store sceptic to me.

quote: In the end a fundamental moral principle has to have some connection to reality or else it ends up being useless, since morals are how we should live.

It has to have some application to reality, but this is not the same as being derived from experience or being contingent.

	07-11-2004 08:12									#73
	Get a bigger avatar today!

That's a HELL of a Double Post .

	07-11-2004 08:15									#74
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Fixed.

The ****ing forums are acting strange, that is not what I'd typed. This is the second time it has happened today.

	07-11-2004 08:28									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Without some idea of what counts as good, you can't make this judgement. And if you give another laundry list, the original question arises, what makes these things good?

I suppose that most Conservatives would say that order, prosperity, and freedom are good things.

They are good because people have decided that they are. Perhaps you're looking for an ontological explanation. I'm sure you can find the explanation in one of your books somewhere. After all, Conservatives seek to preserve the legacy of our society, and philosophy from Plato to Kant is part of that.

	07-11-2004 08:29									#76
	Remove this text

quote: Not really. Arguing against the Kantian principle is not arguing against Rawls. A separate argument is required. Your prof seems like a dime store sceptic to me

He was arguing against Rawls' conducting of the experiment and 'rigging' the result to his conclusion. Treating people as ends in themselves doesn't mean the veil of ignorance. So the veil is not the Kantian principle, but Rawls' interpretation of the Kantian principle.

Dime store skeptic, he's not. If you don't buy the veil (I for one, do not), then you won't buy his Theory of Justice.

	07-11-2004 08:39									#77
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: He was arguing against Rawls' conducting of the experiment and 'rigging' the result to his conclusion. Treating people as ends in themselves doesn't mean the veil of ignorance.

It means something like it. The idea is that you put yourself in anyone's shoes. The idea that you must treat everyone as an end and not a means is just this. Treating someone as an end in themselves requires seeing the world from their perspective. Of course this applies to everyone, so we end up with putting ourselves in everyone's shoes. That is what the veil of ignorance is for. Same goes for Ronald Dworkin's auction experiment.

WTF is up with your prof. They should fire him.

I'm the Plato's metaphysics specialist and even I know this.

	07-11-2004 08:45									#78
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I haven't read this thread but I would suppose discussions of justice would depend on definitions of justice. You have Plato's which I like, then you have some emotive sense of revenge, then Kants effort for universal justice. To me, justice is just what happens when subjective free will and it's concurrent responsibility is satisfied, so it eliminates sociological or vengeful notions of sentence, it merely establishes who is responsible. Say that someone incites another to kill, does the former have any responsibility for the murder? Assuming the latter had free will, then no. But hey, it's late and I need to re-read stuff to be able to comment properly.

	07-11-2004 08:46									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: It means something like it. The idea is that you put yourself in anyone's shoes. The idea that you must treat everyone as an end and not a means is just this. Treating someone as an end in themselves requires seeing the world from their perspective. Of course this applies to everyone, so we end up with putting ourselves in everyone's shoes. That is what the veil of ignorance is for.

Simply because you are seeing the world from someone else's perspective does not mean that your perspective and interests do not exist anymore. In fact, the act of viewing something from someone else's perspective will be colored by your own perspective and interests, since it is not physically possible to be in the other person's mind.

Also someone else's perspective is informed from his background, as is yours. In order to see everyone's perspective you must know the background which create it.

Saying that we will ignore everyone's background (in the veil of ignorance) is defeating seeing the world from other people's perspective.

I'm just a law student and even I know this .

And I don't think they'll fire the prof, seeing how he's a nationally known expert on legal writing and jurisprudence.

	07-11-2004 08:47									#80
	Put an end to popups!

quote: I haven't read this thread but I would suppose discussions of justice would depend on definitions of justice. You have Plato's which I like, then you have some emotive sense of revenge, then Kants effort for universal justice. To me, justice is just what happens when subjective free will and it's concurrent responsibility is satisfied, so it eliminates sociological or vengeful notions of sentence, it merely establishes who is responsible. Say that someone incites another to kill, does the former have any responsibility for the murder? Assuming the latter had free will, then no. But hey, it's late and I need to re-read stuff to be able to comment properly.

Say wha?

	07-11-2004 09:02									#81
	Remove this text

You are responsible for your actions, lots of verbosity about subjectivity of free will, justice is the recognition of responsibility for given act, justice is the determination of the subjective responsibility of given action. Determinism holds in free will so you cannot claim said act to be someone's "fault" since in that context it was inevitable that it was going to occur, to say "fault" and thus rectification surely requires an objective frame of reference, none exists so relativism holds.... justice cannot therefore include punishment.

	07-11-2004 09:03									#82
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Oh bollocks, I've just justified vigilantism

	07-11-2004 09:04									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Agathon How so? The point of a theory of justice is to reason from examples that people accept to first principles and then revise your examples from that. God is not a first principle that most people are going to accept, so it's useless.

That's your problem. God certainly is a first principle that most people are going to accept. That's plainly obvious.

	07-11-2004 09:07									#84
	Support Apolyton

quote: Simply because you are seeing the world from someone else's perspective does not mean that your perspective and interests do not exist anymore.

No, but you can ignore them. Saying you can't is one thing. I can.

quote: In fact, the act of viewing something from someone else's perspective will be colored by your own perspective and interests, since it is not physically possible to be in the other person's mind.

This is relativist bunk. I can simply discount my own interests, and have done.

quote: Also someone else's perspective is informed from his background, as is yours. In order to see everyone's perspective you must know the background which create it.

Not really. You just need to listen to them. You can quibble about details, but knowing what other people want is pretty simple, you ask them. This guy's point is just amateur psychological relativism.

quote: Saying that we will ignore everyone's background (in the veil of ignorance) is defeating seeing the world from other people's perspective.

No. That's a misunderstanding of Rawls. We ignore our own effectively means we universalize our own. That means thinking of the consequences both for ourselves and everyone else, from everyone's point of view.

He definitely doesn't say that we ignore everyone's interests, rather we treat them as having no particular owner, we universalize them. In other words, what would be the consequences for everyone, if everyone did that.

We certainly don't ignore religious interests, since religious freedoms IIRC are one of the specific things that Rawls is interested in protecting.

	07-11-2004 09:11									#85
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: This is relativist bunk. I can simply discount my own interests, and have done.

True, I think he's tryign to claim that, for example, a judge is as subjective as the defendant. However, that ignores context (yes I know but it does work dammit) whereby in that context a judge is independent but holds certain wildcards that cause him to judge (i.e. the law or a given moral philosophy).

	07-11-2004 09:16									#86
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: No, but you can ignore them. Saying you can't is one thing.

We may have to just disagree, because I do NOT think you can simply ignore your perspective and interests. They are the foundation of your total social being. An attempt to ignore your background will inevitably fail, because it will be what is influcing your attempt to ignore it.

quote: knowing what other people want is pretty simple, you ask them.

And then, using your own background, you assign a value to what that person has told you. You can't tell me that someone saying that they believe God's will should be done on Earth will get the same respect from you than a psych professor's. The background which creates the beliefs is something important. Perhaps it is flawed because of the background.

quote: This guy's point is just amateur psychological relativism.

Which is funny because he's the farthest thing from a relativist... this is my point, not his.

quote: In other words, what would be the consequences for everyone, if everyone did that.

Which is totally influenced by our backgrounds and perspective.

	07-11-2004 09:17									#87
	Put an end to popups!

Agathon, you don't like relativism eh?

	07-11-2004 09:25									#88
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: We may have to just disagree, because I do NOT think you can simply ignore your perspective and interests. They are the foundation of your total social being. An attempt to ignore your background will inevitably fail, because it will be what is influcing your attempt to ignore it.

I habitually do, and so do you. It's called the capacity to empathize, and most of us have it. You can be fully aware of your own perspective and interests (if you weren't how would you know that you weren't) and discount them. It's as simple as saying, "I am an atheist, but not everyone is." We only need to do this in the ordinary way we do it all the time for Rawls' idea to work.

quote: And then, using your own background, you assign a value to what that person has told you. You can't tell me that someone saying that they believe God's will should be done on Earth will get the same respect from you than a psych professor's. The background which creates the beliefs is something important. Perhaps it is flawed because of the background.

Argghhh!!! They get exactly the same consideration. It just so happens that universalizing some beliefs works, and others do not (for example Nazism). But this is a subsequent matter to the initial experiment.

quote: Which is totally influenced by our backgrounds and perspective.

Which is irrelevant because we can discount this. You seem to believe that you can know your own perspective without being able to discount it. But everyone can and habitually does (apart from psychopaths). If there are "hidden persuaders" then you don't know about them, so they are irrelevant.

But none of this has anything to do with the justification of Kant's principle, just its application.

Conservatives still have nothing to offer.

	07-11-2004 09:29									#89
	Support Apolyton

Imran, as far as I can see, all you are doing is providing a reason for understanding the basis or narrative of a given action, instead of either working out who is responsible, or the manner of revenge to be exacted. I don't disagree, I'd much rather knee-jerk reactions are replaced by understanding... I just don't think it's answering the question here.

	07-11-2004 09:29									#90
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: I habitually do, and so do you. It's called the capacity to empathize, and most of us have it. You can be fully aware of your own perspective and interests (if you weren't how would you know that you weren't) and discount them. It's as simple as saying, "I am an atheist, but not everyone is." We only need to do this in the ordinary way we do it all the time for Rawls' idea to work.

But you really don't. Even though you emphathize and think you are discounting your own perspective and interests, you really are not. They are always part of the background and are always influencing your views and outlooks. You cannot get rid of them, even when you believe you are.

quote: If there are "hidden persuaders" then you don't know about them, so they are irrelevant.

Not at all. Seeing as most mental activity is in the unconscious, they are anything but irrelevent. Unconscious thought guides conscious thought and can never be discounted.

quote: But none of this has anything to do with the justification of Kant's principle, just its application.

And the application is the problem! Or have you not been reading?