>dude just be nice to each other and shit lmao >t. the

>>9809331
>moral
>philosopher
let this meme die

>>9809331
>just imagine how much it would suck to be a retarded nigger tranny muslim
>man, that would suck

>>9809331
>Veil of Ignorance
>sounds like a stupid idea
>literally no one formulated it before him

You might be taking all of his insights for granted.

>>9809331
Foremost my ass.

That's not Elizabeth Anscombe OR Philippa Foot. Virtue ethics is where it's at.

Also, Gauthier is better than Rawls anyway if you're big into contractualism

>>9809367
I'm doing my dissertation on Foot, Anscombe and Williams atm, imo they're the only good moral philosophers post Kant

File: 1500763222771.png (249KB, 248x459px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 248x459px

>>9809365
Nobody did it before because it's stupid idea

He's only a moral philosopher insofar as he's trying to explain how to judge the shortcomings/efficiency of a liberal society, which is based on a conception of justice and morality

>>9809337
i dont get it. please explain this to me, im a brainlet

Everyone knows that I am better, yes,
Yes, I'm better, yeah!
No matter, hey, plump pockets, e!
I am now on a horse, my most sad yet envious, hey,
After dlinshe all the money, yes,
Different bratuha songs, yes!
Different producers, yes,
I can not do anything, and not lose it.
It gets so that the winner threw a loser, ah,
Garbage Nesosh, child - I'll take over your "Ruger" Yes, I said, to "Ruger."
All my niggers bandits
I wear grillzy until teeth ache, yeah!
Oh, is he cool? I swear I'm even stiffer.
It is not a "Rolex", a bitch, it is "Frank Muller".
Yes, "Frank Muller".
The guy I started first-base player, got to the top.
Man, I will win and I can not stop.
I remember, I was a little something, but turned into many,
Always been honest at 100, his neighborhood swear.
I loved chetyrohdverku, now I want a convertible, yes!
Now I do what I want, now I do what I want
li

>>9809642
he's just a egoist spooksman, ignore him

in a theory of justice rawls introduces the concept of "reflective equilibrium" whereby if anyone enters the veil of ignorance and does not conclude in his principals of justice then they will have to start over the process, and keep on doing so, until they do. Thus, the whole process becomes arbitrary and superfluous


There's the weak point in his work, brainlets.


I try and give every philosopher/theorist due time and consideration ,even if I fundamentally disagree with them, because I take for granted that they were intelligent people (e.g. you may disagree with marx, but he certainly wasn't lacking in intellectual capacity)......but for the life of me I can't think why Rawls would commit to paper and publish the most goddamn stupid idea I have ever come across....."reflective equilibrium" pffft


>>9809365

>literally no one formulated it before him

it was a nifty way to rehash the "state of nature" thought experiment that social contractarians of yore used before him (hobbes, rousseau, locke etc).


I'm probably being too hard on him

I can't stand Rawls.

File: 1453592436256.png (161KB, 341x317px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 341x317px

>dude we just need a government with totalitarian powers to force everyone to be equal
>I'm a liberal guys, I swear

also

>reflective equilibrium

>>9810013
Liberals (not the American type) want to let people be free to do what they want. Egalitarians want everyone to have equal outcomes and so are not hands-off (unless they are just legal egalitarians).

>>9809609
Tell us more about your dissertation.

>>9810063
I'm trying to prove that the concept of an imperative or "should" contains some ungraspable metaphysics and is impossible to reduce to a descriptive truth.

As such, I argue that categorical imperatives must be discarded entirely and moral discourse should revolve around the fulfillment of subjective values, using a language based on appeals rather than commands, and making reference to truth claims about how different values interact & how they can be most effectively fulfilled.

As such, I think subjectivism and egoism are basically true. What's right for me is based on what I want and how I feel, and it's different for you. However, this doesn't imply the necessity of tolerance; there's no reason why I shouldn't try to get you to do what I think is best.

I hope I communicated the idea well, if I haven't then I need to work a lot harder lol

>>9810492
This sounds interesting. I would love to hear more. There are actually a lot of people working on exciting thesis and dissertation topics but most are too scared to share even basic elements of their work.

>>9810492
You sicken me. Reading this post is like being a physicist and hearing about someone doing their Physics PhD on the dynamics of Tonka Trucks in a wading pool full of horse piss.

>>9810492
Thoughts on laws?

>*nglo
>moral
>political
>philosopher
Absolutely disgusting.
>>9809365
It's literally fucking enlightenment philosophy using different language.
Prelapsidian horsepiss.

im glad this board at least agrees rawls is a hack

>>9810492
So you're a randian objectivist?

>>9811341

Nailed it.

>>9811346
wanker

>>9811303
If anything he only makes a great intellectual giant to argue against.

>>9809331
You just have to say that you've never actually read Rawls, you don't have to make yourself look like an idiot while doing it.

>>9809331
Based Clint

>>9809331
wrong thread

>>9811303
This board doesn't agree that Rawls is a hack. I don't think that he's a hack. Nozick, however...

>>9814390
W R O N G

>>9811341
>>9811346
No, not at all. I don't know how well I've understood it, but my impression of her work is that Rand claims we can discover objective moral truths through reason, hence the name. I say there's no such thing, just whatever desires and feelings we subjectively hold, and that these are the only possible reasons to act in an ultimate sense.

While that is technically egoism, I don't propose any virtue to selfishness like she does, or suggest any kind of moral code all must abide by that would maintain freedom and property or whatever. I also think capitalism is a nightmare that blights humanity no less than the state does, which is a pretty different conclusion to hers.

File: s-l300.jpg (15KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x300px

>>9814529
Hello there my prope-

Hello there, friend

>>9814572
*nuzzles ur ego* :3
I actually considered trying to fit Stirner in somehow but my professors are normies and haven't heard of him so I figured it was better to play it safe. I'm at LSE so my teachers are all very heavily invested in the Anglo analytic ethics tradition, a lot of them studied under guys like Cohen or Williams

>>9814795
Go big or go home. Who is your dissertation adviser and who else is on your committee?

>>9814572
Friends are spooks though.

>>9811350

smd desu

>>9814795

similar issues here m8. I'm doing history at oxford atm and wanted to do my dissertation on one aspect of continental philosophy. First Nietzsche was shot down, then Stirner couldn't be done because David Leopold was on sabbatical. Good luck with yours.

>>9809365
The veil of ignorance is not the thing that he is arguing for. You know literally nothing worth knowing. If you think that Rawls is advocating for the VoI and not for the social order that he thinks he would choose were he placed behind the VoI, you're an idiot.
A Rawlsian society is one in which the worst off are as well off as they can be, regardless of whether efforts are made to improve their lot; so long as they couldn't be any worse off than they are, we're looking at a society that is just in Rawls' opinion. The VoI is just a thought experiment; Rawls uses it to come to conclusions and argue in favor of his own vision of the welfare state.

>>9814795
Bumping because I'm even more curious.

>>9815447
Shaking my disappointment?

>>9816369

succ. my. diiiiiiiick.

desu.

>>9816385
Nah that's gaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy dude.