what do you think of that comment?
This link has been bookmarked by 30 people . It was first bookmarked on 14 Jun 2008, by someone privately.
-
12 Sep 11
-
-
Such a society, he argued, would commit itself to the greatest possible liberty that is compatible with a like liberty for all,
-
and would also permit economic inequality only when that raised the level of the least well-off.
-
Rawls believed that philosophy's contribution to politics ought to be made in this way. Abstract models of an ideal can be extremely valuable as targets on which to fix our attention, as we try to make the world that way, rather than its current way or some worse way.
-
-
-
Each religious or secular doctrine will accept the political principles, and the independent moral arguments that ground them, as one part or "module" in their overall view of life, though most at this point will connect them to deeper metaphysical ideas and arguments.
-
-
11 Sep 11
-
He also continued to endorse its most innovative philosophical device, the "Original Position," according to which political principles are imagined as selected by rational agents who are deprived of all information about their place in society (wealth, class, race, gender, religion, etc.) that would bias the design of principles in favor of their own situation
-
-
-
many Americans began to worry that religious pressures were slowly distorting American institutions.
-
largely amoral and self-centered
-
-
-
"[H]ow is it possible for there to exist over time a just and stable society of free and equal citizens who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines?"
-
-
-
Instead, they will constitute a realm of overlap among all the "comprehensive doctrines" in the envisaged society — at least all those that are "reasonable," by which Rawls means willing to respect the equal dignity of all citizens.
-
-
10 Sep 11
-
Can liberal
-
constitutional democracy, built on values of mutual respect and reciprocity, be stable, or even survive, in a world of religious and secular pluralism?
-
-
16 Sep 09
-
14 Sep 09
-
Can liberal constitutional democracy, built on values of mutual respect and reciprocity, be stable, or even survive, in a world of religious and secular pluralism?
-
-
-
hey can be moved by considerations of fairness and respect
-
We must therefore, he says, begin "with the assumption that a reasonably just political society is possible," and with the related assumption that human beings have enough of a moral nature that they can be moved by considerations of fairness and respect.
-
-
-
The growing political influence of the religious right made many fear values of mutual respect and equality might be forgotten in the country's zeal for religious solidarity.
-
-
-
l influence of the religious right made many fear values of mutual respect and e
-
John Rawls (1921-2002) invoked the history of the Weimar Republic, saying that things go from bad to worse when intellectuals are unwilling to address the urgent issues of their time. In "Political Liberalism" (1993), he resolved to do just that.
-
-
13 Sep 09
-
Political principles, so understood, will not be separate from the rest of what religious and secular citizens believe. Instead, they will constitute a realm of overlap among all the "comprehensive doctrines" in the envisaged society — at least all those that are "reasonable," by which Rawls means willing to respect the equal dignity of all citizens. Each religious or secular doctrine will accept the political principles, and the independent moral arguments that ground them, as one part or "module" in their overall view of life, though most at this point will connect them to deeper metaphysical ideas and arguments.
-
-
-
Such a society, he argued, would commit itself to the greatest possible liberty that is compatible with a like liberty for all, and would also permit economic inequality only when that raised the level of the least well-off
-
"Original Position," according to which political principles are imagined as selected by rational agents who are deprived of all information about their place in society (wealth, class, race, gender, religion, etc.) that would bias the design of principles in favor of their own situation.
-
"reasonable," by which Rawls means willing to respect the equal dignity of all citizens.
-
-
-
So, for example, we would be ill advised to base our political principles on the idea of the immortal soul, or the idea of "self-evident" truth, since many citizens do not accept such ideas. We can, however, Rawls thinks, argue for political principles in a thinner way, using ethical notions that are not inseparable from controversial religious doctrines.
-
-
12 Sep 09
-
In light of the growing religious presence in American public life, however, Rawls felt the need to augment and revise his great work, attempting to show people with deep religious convictions that they had good reason to accept principles that guaranteed liberty and fairness to all.
-
reciprocity
-
remain profoundly divided
-
Rawls now urges that we must not attempt to ground political principles in any doctrines, whether metaphysical or epistemological or religious, that are controversial among the religious and secular views of life that reasonable citizens hold.
-
-
02 Feb 09
-
Such a society, he argued, would commit itself to the greatest possible liberty that is compatible with a like liberty for all
-
people are largely amoral and self-centered
-
-
-
talk a common language
-
-
-
"Political Liberalism" carries forward one's hope for humanity in an era of religious and ideological turmoil.
-
-
-
The growing political influence of the religious right made many fear values of mutual respect and equality might be forgotten in the country's zeal for religious solidarity.
-
Add Sticky NoteWe must therefore, he says, begin "with the assumption that a reasonably just political society is possible," and with the related assumption that human beings have enough of a moral nature that they can be moved by considerations of fairness and respect.
-
-
I dont agree with this statement at all. I think we have too many people in our world today that base so much of their politics off their religion. Before I moved out almost all of views came from my parents, and their views from being strong christians. Gay Rights would have been something that would have been made legal all over the country if it were possible for us to have a strictly political society. Letting a gay couple have the same rights as a straight couple would be fairness and respect. Making abortion 100% legal with no restrictions lets say would make for a "fair" society. You could make those decisions for yourself, that is fair. But instead we have laws, and a political system that i feel is almost completely based off religion. We dont have people getting elected as President who are Muslim, Buddhist, or another other religion besides "protestant" besides a select few because thats what "looks good" to the american eye when we what a head political figure.
- 6 more sticky notes...
-
-
i agree with jordana. the world is overly populated and there is far too much religious influence in politics. although there's a seperation of church and state, there is no separation between the two in one's judgement
-
I do not agree with this statement. Many of people's political decision are based of their religious belief. There is no possibilty that a just polotical society can happen because there will always be the religious factor getting in the way.
-
A reasonably just political society? How is a reasonably just political society defined? Is this a society in which the majority receive the same political rights? How can we define such a society when there are such differing views of what this society would look like? I agree with Rawls when he proposes the question "how is it possible" at the beginning of the paragraph. Reading the highlighted section of this paragraph, that was the very first thing that came to my mind-- how is this possible? How can we develop a society based on assumption? That is a very risky thing to do. Really, think about it; haven't you met someone, or at least heard of someone, whose actions were not based on their morals and/or didn't take fairness and respect? Most likely. I don't mean to sound negative, but there are people in this world who are self-centered, are impulsive, have no control over their action, or will to anything just to meet their basic needs, etc. Really, can we expect everyone to live up to moral standards?
-
"a reasonably just political society" is not at all possible in the world today. The only exception would be if a country had a central religion or moral code that everyone would believe and follow in. For our morals and principles direct our decision we make in every day life.
-
I also agree i don't think we need to have that huge religious factor in our government. If you look at other countries many of them that have the religion as a major impact are unable to develope to become a better country. They are still stuck with civil wars and unfair treatment of women nd children. They also don't accept some medicial practices because it is agaisnt there beliefs. They also don't educate everyone. Religion just causes issues.
-
When you have a country thats was founded on religious principles and moved forward by people with religious backgrounds its near impossible to separate where government/politics end and religion starts. And while it may be possible for one person to live a decent life without religious morals a society without any will fall apart. We base everything from our laws to our calendar around religious related issues. If it is possible we're not even close.
-
-
-
Add Sticky NoteSo, for example, we would be ill advised to base our political principles on the idea of the immortal soul, or the idea of "self-evident" truth, since many citizens do not accept such ideas. We can, however, Rawls thinks, argue for political principles in a thinner way, using ethical notions that are not inseparable from controversial religious doctrines.
-
is that possible?
-
I don't think it is possible to use ethical notions that are not inseparable from controversial religious doctrines because many, if not all, ethical notions are intertwined with morality and morality and ethical notions is the root of all controversial religious doctrines. Thus, since ethics and morality are found in all controversial doctrines, it is nearly impossible to separate the ethics and morals from religious doctrines.
-
-
willing to respect the equal dignity of all citizens
-
-
31 Jan 09
-
things go from bad to worse when intellectuals are unwilling to address the urgent issues of their time
-
"[H]ow is it possible for there to exist over time a just and stable society of free and equal citizens who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines?"
-
Political principles, so understood, will not be separate from the rest of what religious and secular citizens believe.
-
-
-
and would also permit economic inequality only when that raised the level of the least well-off.
-
political principles are imagined as selected by rational agents who are deprived of all information about their place in society (wealth, class, race, gender, religion, etc.) that would bias the design of principles in favor of their own situation.
-
Can liberal constitutional democracy, built on values of mutual respect and reciprocity, be stable, or even survive, in a world of religious and secular pluralism?
-
the basic value of equal respect for persons can generate workable political principles that can help us live well together
-
-
02 Aug 08
-
15 Jun 08
zpinheadIn light of the growing religious presence in American public life, however, Rawls felt the need to augment and revise his great work, attempting to show people with deep religious convictions that they had good reason to accept principles that guaranteed
-
14 Jun 08
-
13 Jun 08
anthony wheelerIn light of the growing religious presence in American public life, John Rawls felt he needed to show people with deep religious convictions that they had good reason to accept principles that guaranteed liberty and fairness to all.
Public Stiky Notes
Page Comments
the original position
his question about fairness and difference
his view that humans can be moved towards "the good"
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.