So this idea of the Original Position is a pretty sweet way to think about what justice really is. At the very least, it seems to be the most rational way to figure out what is most important to a just society. The "veil of ignorance" allows for subjective interests and discriminating factors to be ignored temporarily while the important thoughts are being thunk. But it seems like this veil of ignorance is necessary because of human nature, which tends toward personal interests. And it sort-of seems to me that that tendency is the main reason why there will always be conflict between people and the structures set up (by those people) to restrict that very same tendency.
So there we are (the proverbial We, that is), sitting amidst of all of our social structures and history and everything, and we want pure justice. Not the discolored crap that our current situation creates, but the pure stuff. So we try to imagine what we would do if we were completely detached from everything that is our capitalist, selfish, individual selves. We want to ignore all of the influences we tend to feel when dealing with rules and privileges or the lack thereof (maybe a computer is the answer! But that's a quick shortcut toward the Matrix). It seems like that fact that the Original Position never really exists points to the implausibility of it all. Even if we were to use this awesome tool to put together the perfectly ideal, just society, we would have a terrible time trying to make the transition from where we are now to wherever that would be. It's similar to the way that a lot of people will agree that perfect equality and a totally communist society seems great, but the transition from having private property to making everything state-owned is too difficult to imagine, much less consider actualizing. So I guess my question is this: Is the attempt to put together a just society using an imaginary situation as the base just an exercise in futility? Is that nothing more than fantasy?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Original Position
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I missed class yesterday, so forgive me if I miss some shining fact that was discussed in class, but I agree with your concern of the Original Position. Similar to a utopia of sorts, it just seems like this great idea of a way to discuss justice isn't really possible at all. Even Rawls says that it is against the state of nature. It is against the natural way of humans to act in such a way. If the goal is this pure version of justice, and a society that lives by it, is it expecting too much of humans?
ReplyDeletePart of what I got out of Rawls was his idea of a reflective equilibrium, where we take the original principle, the thing as it ideally would be, and then compare it to the situations we are in now. By continuously moving back and forth, adjusting our principles to fit the current conditions of the situation, or adjusting the current conditions to fit the ideal principles of justice, it becomes possible to make the most just decision. That might be my own misinterpretation of what he actually meant by that term, but I liked reading Rawls idea of the original position as the ideal we measure our own situations by and adjust accordingly. I didn't read it as something he thinks we should implement now, or are even capable of implementing if we wanted to, but simply an idea of justice that all can rationally agree is just and that we can base and measure our situational conceptions of justice against.
ReplyDeleteI think this is really interesting, different way to look at this kind of philosophy. Mainly because, as much as we try to put ourselves in objective shoes, I am still going to subconsciously be Mathilde and my background is still going to affect what I believe "justice" to be. As we have tried to discuss in class so many times-- the Original Priciple and we do not have the specifics to actually apply things and solve situations. I find the world to be a more complicated place than I think it is each day-- so I find it impelling that you came to the conclusion that it might be solely futile efforts to comprehend and define something that might be, in all its simplicity, almost impossible to implement.
ReplyDeleteYeah,Brendan, you're totally right. I just got a little excited and just started typing away. It is definitely supposed to be an equilibrium in that it "expresses reasonable conditions and yields principles which match our considered judgments duly pruned and adjusted."
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think that a "perfect" society is not possible to obtain. The best one can do is look at what we have to deal with and do their upmost to minimize the unjust aspects of that society. Trying to think of or create the ideal society just seems futile.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure, but I believe an answer to your proposal really depends on whether or not one believes in the human as an inherently good individual. When given the choice, would you rather be corrupt and wealthy or live equally with others, necessity taken care of.
ReplyDeleteDo all human's really want justice? It would seem not with the way issues of poverty and lucrative corruption are poorly addressed, or ignored.