Rawls's Distributive Justice | Political Philosophy with Jason Brennan | Libertarianism.org

Jason Brennan explains the political thought of John Rawls, one of the key figures in modern political philosophy.

Download your free copy of Brennan's "Political Philosophy: An Introduction," here

[aramagoo]

If a class should be advantaged it should the working class, because both the rich and the welfare class rely on their production.

[BLBTER]

Wait I'm smelling some BS over here. I'm not sure I understand how Rawls' conception of Distributive Justice would lead to great inequalities. Brennan says that the difference principle (as in socio-economical inequalities need to be in everyone's benefice, especially the less advantageous) allows for radical inequality. 8:40

But then, is his argument that the system *could* lead to the optimal wealth distribution being good for the less advantageous and somehow even better for the most advantageous?
Tell me if I'm wrong...because otherwise, that's just a bad reading of Rawls! It's distributive justice, it's wealth distribution; any gain the less advantageous gets means a loss for the most advantageous. That's usually how distribution works... The pie metaphor only shows that a certain way of distributing wealth benefits ALL under the Veil of Ignorance, where everyone is impartial, as it benefits the less fortunate. It can't benefit both the most fortunate and the less fortunate, I mean that's the whole point of the Veil of Ignorance!!

The *worse* part is, Brennan uses this as a huge point of criticism to Rawls' philosophy, especially in part 6 "Skepticism About Distributive Justice". Now, tell me if I'm misinterpreting it, cause that'd be really ironic, but isn't the entire basketball bit totally fine under Rawls' Distributive Justice, so long as LeBron James, who got other people's money so they can watch him perform, is just taxed on his revenue in a way that keeps him privileged, yet less so, and then said money from taxes is redistributed to the less fortunate than LeBron, like worse players or teams, to help them improve as well, which would also create better competition? When impartial (Veil of Ignorance), everyone wins (even though LeBron doesn't win as much, #TeamMagicJ) isn't *that* what Rawls' just society looks like?

Honestly, haven't seen any good vids on Rawls/Nozick on YT, so make sure you read about him before camping in Libertarianism, because you might be attacking a straw man.

Thanks for this video. As far as I can see it, the main point against libertarianism is the following one: relationship between the capitalists and the workers are not equal, neither in power, neither in knowledge, neither in their place in society. So, we cannot assume that the contract between worker and his employer is just. Is a worker free? No, and I will explain in what way. First, you need to eat and in order to eat you need money and in order to have money you NEED to work. Take close care at this word NEED. If something you need to do than you are not free. Also, morally is not fair that someone has all means of production and the others have only their labour power. When you couple that together you have an asymmetrical relationship between two or more men/women. Anyone wanna expand on this take?

[MalachiSpring-st]

Robinson Scott Anderson Ruth Hall Angela

[berningsandwiches]

I'm not sure how you can justify the flipid dismissal of the argument that 'individuals who accumulate vast sums of wealth will use that wealth to buy themselves political power'. Given the current state of the political system in the United States, that argument is not merely theoretical.

[patpearce]

The presumption of the international scope is that people are not capable of idealising reality beyond ethno-linguistic constrictions

[sorenkarlesson]

well, Rawl doesn't seem to be in favor of free will.

[debradestefano]

Your example of the pie, doesn't say what appetites each one has to get filled. That's your problem. You think we all get filled on whatever slice we get.

[abdulmoeedamjad]

Dear Mr Jason Brennan. I'll suggest you to please study ZAKAT system. Which is the ultimate solution of above issue.

[debradestefano]

Rawls's doesn't think that nobody is deserving of what they get You've not grasped his philosophy. Take a look at all that is happening today with nationalism, can you say what you believe has made it better or worse? I can guarantee that Rawls theory, if it were applied consistently, wouldn't have us where we are today. Aren't we buying political power today? Corporations are people too.... What has happened here is very similar to having an aristocratic system with the inequity and passing down of wealth. Why don't you try and read him again and read without the defense of libertarians. Just try and read open minded, as surely, you can't possibly see what has happened to our economy and the inequality is just. Or do you still?