Scholar's Chair - The Theory of Justice by John Rawls

[@joeoppenheimer5310]

The version of Rawls' theory that is easiest to understand is in his book Rawls, John Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (Harvard University Press).

[@read1communications]

Thanks Joe.

[@mattw8077]

A very good accounting, thanks for taking the time to produce and share this with us.

[@SushiJoe]

Thank for this! Dr. Oppenheimer was incorrect in the beginning. It was Mills that argued Utilitarinism. Rawls was vocally opposed to Mills.

[@trumptakedown]

Seems like a good show and host. I'll be on the lookout for some other videos.

[@apope06]

Amartya Sen's Capabilities Approach is genuis. Its a framework for Rawls in actualization.

Thanks, this was illuminating. Thanks for the upload.

[@read1communications]

Thank you for your response. Please subscribe.

[@ryanjavierortega8513]

Professor Oppenheimer, I'd like to first thank you for your presentation of Rawls' magnum opus, though I wonder if, instead of the best explanation of Rawls' theory within the A and B Texts existing in a re-statement of the master argument of those texts, that perhaps Samuel Freeman's 'Rawls' (Routledge, 2007) might not be better? Professor Freeman's work on Rawls, as you no doubt are aware, is considered by many to be essential reading, particularly if one's wish is an elucidation of Rawls' work. (For the sake of clarity, I'd like to make explicit that my stance on understanding Rawls' works is to read the literature considered to be relevant by the philosophical community - alongside, and this I truly hope is obvious, his work on Religious Ethics, a Princeton Senior Thesis [available from the University Press at Harvard, for those interested], through his rejection of this stance, to the wonderful Volumes on the Lectures in the History of Moral Philosophy [Barbara Herman's wonderfully edited work, also Harvard], and his Lectures on Political Philosophy [one of Professor Freeman's 2 edited volumes for Harvard, the other being Rawls' Collected Papers], all of which allow one to "read around the text[,]" which you would no doubt recommend, if I understand correctly your opinion of what individuals who wished to understand the Rawlsian stance should do.)

[@calipo11111111111]

thank you for this awesome video, keep the hard work !

[@abblood5079]

thank for this day before examination

[@theghostofgates5450]

what you want for yourself, you should want the same for everyone!

[@ghgh489]

Thank you for this insightful video.. Is there any chance that you can send me the tittle of the research has done byProfessor Emeritus Dr. Joe Oppenheimer to see the testability of Rawls basic principles and assumptions? That would be a great help!

[@read1communications]

I am sure Dr. Oppenheimer can provide guidance on his own research. Here is his e-mail address: joe oppenheimer All the best.

[@ghgh489]

Khalil Shadeed Thank you so much! I really appreciate it.

[@user-oe7wz5xn1r]

helped me throughout philosophy of jurisprudence

[@dukomadam5270]

الأفكار لابد أن تطرح علي الواقع من غير اعتراض ليعرف البعض واذا اتي شخص بفكره احسن منها و منفعة اذا امكن يستحسن التوافق . الاختيار والرفض حتي في التجاره احيانا تعرف بمربط أو عقد بيع او شراء .قول الله تعالي. ففهمناها سليمان وكلا ءاتينا حكما وعلما وسخرنا مع . . داؤد الجبال يسبحن والطير وكنا فاعلين . صدق الله العظيم.بدليل سورة الشوري (ق.ك) وماذا تعني بين الناس كل الاحترام والتقدير :)

[@LoizidesGeorge]

Thx 4 sharing !!

[@akmishra7068]

Thanku....

[@Czcibor1024]

Rawl's veil of ignorance (and utility maxising individual) is interesting for ethical idea however, when one actually applies some less biased thinking: 1) One would indeed be worried about the least off, but even more about median. Especially one who is not so risk averse. 2) The result of maxising utility, does not bring social democracy as intended. Such system should be rather indeed have nice safety net, but lean towards Brave New World totalitarianism. If using over eager police that accepting one extrajudical execution of technically speaking innocent person would save two people... then it should be done. If resigning from full enfranchise towards only ex. top 10% best educated people would improve decision making process, then it also should be done...

[@GamingLoadown101]

People's idea of fairness is to different for them to agree.

[@eliswimmer34]

good life

[@mwfrontier5060]

at the 21 min mark hes talking about entering into a contract which all will be happy, accept and take care of disadvantaged, unlikely, even now planners always want to play with things, and what bureaucracy will be in charge of all this? who will influence them? money? politicians pandering? Nothing will stay a contract I'm sorry to say like the constitution, they attack in now on grounds that are endless, in the future these new so called contracts didn't consider the problems of today they will say, no new companies, none can get bigger than the other, this one cant fail or it will throw all into chaos. Nothing this contracted can allow for innovation, because innovation requires a more free market place, and they will crush all such growth due to unfairness... it's like a story I read.... hmm? Government cannot control that which it does not produce, as good as the market.

[@GamingLoadown101]

22:00 how does someone making so much money make someone else worse of? It doesn't.

[@skaterdavedownsouth]

You’re willfully blind if you answer your own question in such a manner.

[@GamingLoadown101]

@@skaterdavedownsouth thats not an arguement

[@로악귀-u9w]

Brown James Wilson Timothy Davis Lisa

[@MahmutAyabakan]

Gonzalez Patricia Jones Jessica Perez Jessica

[@israelsuarez8895]

OMG why can't you make this interesting? Speaker very boring and monotone and the interviewer is slow and is only asking very basic questions and they just sound very vanilla can he go 20ec without saying Duahh or UUUHHMM....

[@read1communications]

Thank you for your critic. I appreciate your point of view.

[@johnmoonitz2968]

Rawls theories are wrought through with flaws and inconsistencies. First off . . . If he truly believed in this theory, then he should support the dismantling of the family . . . immediately . . . seeing as family, it should be widely agreed, is the most obvious example of inequality in all of society; however, he only weakly says that this issue might be addressed further down the road (???). His theory further fails to adequately address the inequalities between nations . . . that is to say, the standards to which he holds the individual, he does not apply to nations. These are but two of the many flaws inherent in his theories. Were a government to actually put this philosophy into practice, we would see the development of yet another totalitarian, socialist state, which would achieve none of the noble goals set forth as the inspiration that drives this philosophy. Egalitarianism does not adequately take into account human nature, human drive and ingenuity, human desires and etc. There are several examples throughout history of various political and social philosophies that either failed to take human nature (and etc.) into account . . . or simply brushed it aside, choosing, rather, to subdue the individual, stripping them of their individual liberty and rights, and subjecting them to servitude to the state). Philosophies of this nature require the subjugation of the human spirit and freedom and all that goes with this, to the state. This is so contrary to human nature, which innately desires freedom, peace, privacy and the like, that the bulk of any society would, necessarily, have to be forced to obey the state and follow this sort of program. There is nothing wrong with inequality . . . nature itself is rife with inequality . . . some planets are larger than others . . . some planets can sustain life, others cannot . . . some animals are the hunters, and others the hunted . . . some land is desert, other land is lush with trees and rivers and etc. . . . The same is true with human beings. Some of the most amazing people to have impacted human society came out of incredibly difficult and disadvantaged situations . . . indeed, it was this challenge, pulling their self out of inequality, despite the lack of resources or education or etc., that developed their character. In effect, this sort of philosophy is like a smothering mother, protecting her child from every evil, real and perceived, never allowing the child to face real challenges, never allowing the child to experience failure or loss or pain . . . She believes she is doing the right thing . . . but the end result is a spoiled, lazy, unchallenged, unremarkable child. No thank you. I value individual liberty . . . I value my privacy and I value peace. This philosophy is counter productive to each of these. I have no doubt that many who adhere to this philosophy do so with good intentions, but the path to which this flawed philosophy inevitably leads is disastrous.

[@leonardogodim]

+John Moonitz You should seriously visit South America. Try understanding that the justice presented by Rawls does not consist in taking people's freedom but giving que less fortunate some. A kid who dies from starvation is not at all living acording to their human nature. It's about the majority of people being privated from their freedom in order to a minority live in abundance.

[@apope06]

John Moonitz Good stuff man. All good points.

[@skaterdavedownsouth]

You sound like a high school kid still enamored with Atlas Shrugged.