Rumble in the Ethical Jungle: Rawls vs. Aristotle

[Magritte]

part the first http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.ca/2 ... ng-of.html

part the second http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.ca/2 ... of_18.html

I thought this would be right up Miles' alley.

[mdsimpson92]

The author seems to share my want to have our Rawlsian cake with virtuous icing and eat it.

If I have an issue with Rawls, it is more at his foundation of his argument with the veil of ignorance scenario. As much as I would like for it to work, I don't think it quite works due to the fact that it requires these individuals to form a contract devoid of community, family, or history, the very context necessary for moral decisions , as it is relationships that form morality. Furthermore, without these things you have an incomplete concept of the self, which is problematic when you are conceiving individuals forming a social contract. I would recommend Michael Sandel's "Liberalism and the Limits of Justice"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism ... of_Justice

[mdsimpson92]

http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-11/#watch

Here's a decent episode, covering part of my issue.

[mdsimpson92]

http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-11/#watch

Here's a decent episode, covering part of my issue.




DOUBLE POST DRINK FLEET

[Magritte]

Ooh, double post!

* runs for the bottle *

Thanks Miles, I needed that.

[Metacrock]

http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-11/#watch

Here's a decent episode, covering part of my issue.

I saw that show a year or two ago. I watched several episodes. It's excellent. I was surprised that I found more to disagree with Rawls about but not about his dealings with constitutionalism or Util.

[Magritte]

The author seems to share my want to have our Rawlsian cake with virtuous icing and eat it.

That's the thing I like about Massimo, his evenhandedness and recognition that every school of thought and every thinker has both merits and warts. He does take sides but never in a doctrinaire or chauvinist manner.

If I have an issue with Rawls, it is more at his foundation of his argument with the veil of ignorance scenario. As much as I would like for it to work, I don't think it quite works due to the fact that it requires these individuals to form a contract devoid of community, family, or history, the very context necessary for moral decisions , as it is relationships that form morality. Furthermore, without these things you have an incomplete concept of the self, which is problematic when you are conceiving individuals forming a social contract. I would recommend Michael Sandel's "Liberalism and the Limits of Justice"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism ... of_Justice

That was my reaction upon learning about the veil of ignorance - that it decontextualizes things. However I haven't read Theory of Justice, just read about Rawls from other people so I'll reserve judgement. Will check out that Sandel video.

[mdsimpson92]

The issue I do have with some of potential narrative view of favoritism with things like family, country, or friendship, is the usual potential for vices like nepotism, nationalism and unhealthy conservatism (in whatever form it may take whether left or right *looks at China*). Actually China kind of has all of those qualities (but I still love em' ) But I'm getting off topic.


But then there is always a "golden mean" to these things isn't there.

[Magritte]

Are there any ethicists who criticize moral / ethical ideas from any other angle than "program the robot to make peanut butter"?

You know the exercise - you get one person to write instructions for making a peanut butter sandwich, and someone else has to follow them literally. Open the jar of peanut butter. So your "robot" drops it on the floor and it shatters. Oops, you didn't specify that he should take the lid off. OK, so you tell him to take the lid off. He starts biting at it. Oops, you didn't specify that he should use his hand and twist. And so on.

[mdsimpson92]

Are there any ethicists who criticize moral / ethical ideas from any other angle than "program the robot to make peanut butter"?

You know the exercise - you get one person to write instructions for making a peanut butter sandwich, and someone else has to follow them literally. Open the jar of peanut butter. So your "robot" drops it on the floor and it shatters. Oops, you didn't specify that he should take the lid off. OK, so you tell him to take the lid off. He starts biting at it. Oops, you didn't specify that he should use his hand and twist. And so on.

Well we always do run into different ways to screw up don't we.

Then again, the virtue ethics seem to emphasis "practical wisdom" a lot. So they might just say "follow your instincts."

But then they deal more with the question of "how should I live my life" rather than "what is the right thing to do." Closely related questions.

However I'm not sure how the ethical criticism relates to that. Do you mean in the sense of going after what fits our logic but constantly running into situations that end with the logic of the morals contradicting our instincts and moral intuitions so we think "hmm that's not quite right"?