"[In] Rand’s view: The more rational you each are, the more you have to gain from each other and the less your interests conflict.
...."For Rawls, it is the opposite: Another man’s rationality is a threat to you. The more rational we all are, the more our society is dog-eat-dog. The more rational your neighbour is, the bigger threat he is to you, and we need government to protect us from the rational actions of others... This presumption of a fundamental, inescapable, metaphysical conflict of interest among rational human beings underlies everything in Rawls—-the original position, the veil of ignorance, the two principles, the difference principle, the basic structure, the criteria of stability, justice as fairness, . . . everything...
...."For Rand, the more rational your neighbour is, the less of a threat he is to you, and we need government to protect us from the irrational actions of others....
"For Rawls, we need to protect ourselves from people who would act rationally. For Rand, we need to protect ourselves from people who would act irrationally....
...."[Furthermore] if Ayn Rand is right that there is no conflict of interests among rational men—-however strange that may sound—-then all of Rawls’ edifice collapses. "
~ John McCaskey, from his post 'A Dog-Eat-Dog World: Rand vs. Rawls'
NB: If you don't know, John Rawls is widely considered the most influential political philosopher of the late twentieth century, with the effects you can see all around you.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment