Comments on: The Rawls in Rawlsekianism http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/08/the-rawls-in-rawlsekianism/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: Club Troppo » How much is enough? http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/08/the-rawls-in-rawlsekianism/#comment-13680 Club Troppo » How much is enough? Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:12:10 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1388#comment-13680 [...] the social arrangements that produce it improve the prospects of the least advantaged. This is why some libertarians think that it might be possible to combine Rawls’ philosophy with Hayek’s economics. [...] [...] the social arrangements that produce it improve the prospects of the least advantaged. This is why some libertarians think that it might be possible to combine Rawls’ philosophy with Hayek’s economics. [...]

]]> By: glory http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/08/the-rawls-in-rawlsekianism/#comment-13679 glory Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:03:02 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1388#comment-13679 any comments on http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/acknowledging-p.html or http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html ? any comments on

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/acknowledging-p.html

or

http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html

?

]]> By: glory http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/08/the-rawls-in-rawlsekianism/#comment-13683 glory Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:03:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1388#comment-13683 any comments on http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/acknowledging-p.html or http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html ? any comments on

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/acknowledging-p.html

or

http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html

?

]]> By: Greg Newburn http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/08/the-rawls-in-rawlsekianism/#comment-13678 Greg Newburn Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:24:39 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1388#comment-13678 "Rawlsekianism" is ok, I guess, but I think it would sound better as "Hayewlsianity". Let's get that one going instead. “Rawlsekianism” is ok, I guess, but I think it would sound better as “Hayewlsianity”. Let’s get that one going instead.

]]> By: Greg Newburn http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/08/the-rawls-in-rawlsekianism/#comment-13682 Greg Newburn Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:24:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1388#comment-13682 "Rawlsekianism" is ok, I guess, but I think it would sound better as "Hayewlsianity". Let's get that one going instead. “Rawlsekianism” is ok, I guess, but I think it would sound better as “Hayewlsianity”. Let’s get that one going instead.

]]> By: The Ambrosini Critique » Blog Archive » Sentence of Enduring Value http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/08/the-rawls-in-rawlsekianism/#comment-13677 The Ambrosini Critique » Blog Archive » Sentence of Enduring Value Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:15:54 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1388#comment-13677 [...] — Will the Lesser [...] [...] — Will the Lesser [...]

]]> By: Rue Des Quatre Vents http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/08/the-rawls-in-rawlsekianism/#comment-13676 Rue Des Quatre Vents Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:09:12 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1388#comment-13676 The maxi-min principle is a good starting point, since, as you say, it shifts our focus away from inequality and moves it to a general concern for helping the worst off. Rabid egalitarians--G.A. Cohen, Larry Temkin--generally bite the bullet and reject Rawls and accept the conclusion of the "Leveling Down Objection". They would prefer a world where all are poor rather than only some, since for them there is some "intrinsic", infinite value in equality. Anyhow, two quesitons: the maxi-min principle has its virtues, but don't you think it overlooks the importance of numbers? If some distribution in the Rawlsian sense gave enormous benefits to a great, great many, while leaving a small few in poor conditions, wouldn't that be better than one where every one is poor? Or slightly better than poor? Second: given your Rawlsian inclination, why do you think he came to different conclusions than you? Was his theoretical Rawlsianism better than his applied? Why do all his disciples--Van Parijs, Josh Cohen, Sam Freeman, Korsgaard, Scanlon, Pogge, Nagel, Dworkin--all of them disagree with your applied Rawlsianism? The maxi-min principle is a good starting point, since, as you say, it shifts our focus away from inequality and moves it to a general concern for helping the worst off.

Rabid egalitarians–G.A. Cohen, Larry Temkin–generally bite the bullet and reject Rawls and accept the conclusion of the “Leveling Down Objection”. They would prefer a world where all are poor rather than only some, since for them there is some “intrinsic”, infinite value in equality.

Anyhow, two quesitons: the maxi-min principle has its virtues, but don’t you think it overlooks the importance of numbers? If some distribution in the Rawlsian sense gave enormous benefits to a great, great many, while leaving a small few in poor conditions, wouldn’t that be better than one where every one is poor? Or slightly better than poor?

Second: given your Rawlsian inclination, why do you think he came to different conclusions than you? Was his theoretical Rawlsianism better than his applied? Why do all his disciples–Van Parijs, Josh Cohen, Sam Freeman, Korsgaard, Scanlon, Pogge, Nagel, Dworkin–all of them disagree with your applied Rawlsianism?

]]> By: Rue Des Quatre Vents http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/08/the-rawls-in-rawlsekianism/#comment-13681 Rue Des Quatre Vents Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:09:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1388#comment-13681 The maxi-min principle is a good starting point, since, as you say, it shifts our focus away from inequality and moves it to a general concern for helping the worst off. Rabid egalitarians--G.A. Cohen, Larry Temkin--generally bite the bullet and reject Rawls and accept the conclusion of the "Leveling Down Objection". They would prefer a world where all are poor rather than only some, since for them there is some "intrinsic", infinite value in equality. Anyhow, two quesitons: the maxi-min principle has its virtues, but don't you think it overlooks the importance of numbers? If some distribution in the Rawlsian sense gave enormous benefits to a great, great many, while leaving a small few in poor conditions, wouldn't that be better than one where every one is poor? Or slightly better than poor? Second: given your Rawlsian inclination, why do you think he came to different conclusions than you? Was his theoretical Rawlsianism better than his applied? Why do all his disciples--Van Parijs, Josh Cohen, Sam Freeman, Korsgaard, Scanlon, Pogge, Nagel, Dworkin--all of them disagree with your applied Rawlsianism? The maxi-min principle is a good starting point, since, as you say, it shifts our focus away from inequality and moves it to a general concern for helping the worst off.

Rabid egalitarians–G.A. Cohen, Larry Temkin–generally bite the bullet and reject Rawls and accept the conclusion of the “Leveling Down Objection”. They would prefer a world where all are poor rather than only some, since for them there is some “intrinsic”, infinite value in equality.

Anyhow, two quesitons: the maxi-min principle has its virtues, but don’t you think it overlooks the importance of numbers? If some distribution in the Rawlsian sense gave enormous benefits to a great, great many, while leaving a small few in poor conditions, wouldn’t that be better than one where every one is poor? Or slightly better than poor?

Second: given your Rawlsian inclination, why do you think he came to different conclusions than you? Was his theoretical Rawlsianism better than his applied? Why do all his disciples–Van Parijs, Josh Cohen, Sam Freeman, Korsgaard, Scanlon, Pogge, Nagel, Dworkin–all of them disagree with your applied Rawlsianism?

]]>