:: 3/10/2003 ::

I think it's very similar, but Rawls (as quoted in what I've read thus far) says that producing justice will be the natural thing if a rational being operates from behind a veil of ignorance. I don't believe that - I think it depends on the upbringing of the individual in question. In other words, I guess I think the veil of ignorance that produces a person who is beyond not only the seeking of personal gain (which is where Rawls' veil ends), but also is objective beyond the culture and experiences of a life - that's a really tough thing to do. Another way to phrase: if a person has experienced an evil life they're likely to perpetuate that, regardless of personal gain. So what Rawls is talking about is so hypothetical as to be beyond applicable discussion (at least what I've read so far, but all I've gotten at the moment are summaries other people have of what Rawls said, so I can't be sure yet... I continue to look for direct source material). The key difference is Rawls sees justice as a naturally occurring event if personal situations are left alone - I see justice as something which can come only once the personal culture of an individual is transcended (even - perhaps especially - when the culture one comes from propulgates justice, for it is something that must be an inner visceral thing, not handed down, in order to have true spiritual meaning).

:: ranger 01:07 [link] ::

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~