COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	Notes on Rawls's "Theory of Justice"
C00007 ENDMK
C⊗;
Notes on Rawls's "Theory of Justice"

see the notes in the book and also the notes in Nozick

\a. It is never clearly stated how people are to be divided into groups
for the purpose of deciding how well off they are and how benefits
are to be distributed.  It is implicit that he accepts the groupings
that interested American liberals at the time he wrote, but at other
times other groupings have been emphasized.  Why not say that the
worst off are dying kings and millionaires, because the contrast between their
previous luxurious lives and their present misery makes them more
miserable than the poor who are used to it?

\a. Rawls implicitly assumes that there is only one society in the
world.  If there are many, what about the freedom to migrate?

\a. If freedom of emigration is allowed, then a society must be stable
against emigration of any essential group.  Such a group could
form a society of its own or be attracted by another society.  Competition
for people then arises.

\a. Indeed we healthy people
 could all move to another society abandoning the sick.  Our society
depends on generosity for its stability.  It isn't law but sympathy
that makes us do more than we have to.

\a. His society doesn't rely at all on human generosity or human
desire to do a good job.  All virtues are compulsory.  Perhaps I'm
mistaken.  Perhaps there is no discussion of enforcement at all - only
what would happen if people were motivated solely by justice.

\a. Rawls never distinguishes between what is just for an individual
to do and what is just for society to coerce him to do?  Can the law
determine the most just distribution of my goods in my will?  Will
the Christmas Present Justice Board make sure everyone allocates
his Christmas presents justly?

\a. The notion of goods used is ill-defined.  Often they are treated
as though they were conserved physical goods that can be distributed.
However, he cites a "sense of worth" as a good that people can be
given.  How can society give someone a "sense of worth" independently
of his doing something worthy?

\a. The idea that humans have life plans and fulfill them is
implausible.  We have longer range plans than animals, but we
still operate largely with short range desires that are fulfilled
or not on the day.  It is dubious that one should act to minimize
regret at time of death.  What do I care what that senile old man
will think?  What about goals that go beyond one's lifetime?  Does
it make a difference in assessing Leland Stanford that the university
he tried to found actually came into existence when this occurred after
he died?

\a. The original position desire to minimax is unconvincing.