娛樂滿紛 26FUN - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: 我的哲学发展NOTES [打印本頁]

作者: hateyou 時間: 2008-6-19 01:19 PM 標題: 我的哲学发展NOTES

----------------------- 页面 1-----------------------

Lecture highlights, phil. 110 – these are not substitutes for your lecture notes – these are very

sketchy.

Philosophy of Mind

1.  Gilbert Ryle’s critique of Cartesian dualism CD – the view that the mind and body are not identical

but are separate substances that causally interact.

a)  Ryle notes that CD entails the following differences between the mental and the physical.

      i) Whereas the body is publicly observable, the mind is not.

      ii) Whereas the body is subject to physical laws, the mind is not.

      iii) Wheresa the body occupies space, the mind does not.

According to Ryle, this view about the separability of the mind and body entails the following

unacceptable consequences:

      C1: Minds are causally insulated. Leads to solipsism.

      C2: To explain how minds and bodies interact, we must posit a third kind of intermediate event.

      C3: Minds are not free since all mental events are explainable by mental laws.

      C4: The concept of privileged access contradicts Freudian theory of the unconscious.

b)  Ryle’s key criticism of the “offical doctrine” is that it rests on a series of category mistakes.  A

category mistake involves placing a concept into the wrong category or logical typo.

2. J.J.C. Smart proposes an identity theory of the mental and physical whereby all mental events are said

to be identical with physical events. His basis for claiming this is from the history of science. All

events such as lightening, rainbows, etc. have been reduced by science to physical events.    In the same

way, all mental events will be shown one day to be neural events.

A key flaw with the identity theory is that it violates Leibniz’s law of indiscernability of identicals – i.e.,

x = y only if x and y have all their properties in common.    But, there will be mental events that have

different properties than physical events.

3.  Turning vs. Searle on AI.

Turing was a brilliant mathematician who argued that in principle, computers would be able to think by

virtue of their programming in the following sense – that if we are unable to tell the difference between

the replies to questions by a programmed computer (imitation game), then that computer is thinking.

This is called the Turing test.  There is also Church’s thesis which says that any computable function is

Turing computable.    Thus, thinking could be done by a simple computer like a Turing machine or an

abacus.

Searle tried to refute the Turing’s thesis using his famous Chinese Room experiment (know the details

of the experiment). The Chinese Room experiment is a case where the Turing test ispassed, and yet we

cannot reasonably ascribe consciousness to that system.

Free will problem:

1. Suppose it is true that every event in the universe has a cause (determinism), including our actions

and our mental states. Then it appears that there is no such thing as free action.  In other words, there is

an apparent inconsistency between the view that we act freely, and the thesis of determinism.

Determinism can be stated in any of the following four ways.

      1) Every event is caused.

----------------------- 页面 2-----------------------

                                                   2

      2)  Every event could not have been otherwise given the events that preceded it. (physical

      necessity)

      3)  Every event is physically (vs. logically) necessary.

      4) An omniscient being would be able to predict with 100% certainty every event.

There have been several positions over the years in the literature regarding the free will debate.

      a) incompatibilism – rejects free will, all acts are determined in a deterministic universe.

      b) indeterminism – rejects determinism opening the door to free actions.

      c) compatibilism – is the view that we can have our cake and eat it too – that there is no

      inconsistency between determinism and free action.

As an example of indeterminism, there is Popper’s article in Castell. Popper rejects determinism on the

grounds that submicroscopic events are not all predictable in light of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

In terms of compatibilism, there have been a number of attempts:

a)  soft determinism – is the view that although an action is free if it is internally vs. externally caused.

That is, an act is free if it is caused by one’s inner mental events. The problem with this view is that

inner mental events are still events, and hence caused.

b)  simple indeterminism – is the view that all events except inner mental events are caused – thus

actions are immune to determinism.    The problem with this view is that actions would then be random –

whereas free actions ideally involve reasoned deliberation.

Specific compatibilist solutions to the free will problem:

a)  Taylor’s theory of agency – is the view that acts originated by agents are free given that agents are

things and not events.  Thus agents are neither caused nor uncaused – given that determinism applies to

events and not things.

b)  Stace’s soft determinism – Stace argues that the free will debate is based on a conceptual confusion.

It involves the wrong definition of free act as an uncaused event. If that’s what a free act is, then since

every event is caused, no act would be free. Instead, he proposes defining a free action as any event that

is internally vs. externally caused. In that case, many actions would be free.

c)  Bender’s compatibilist solution – involves adopting the view that a person acts freely if they could

have done otherwise – but with the important qualification – in the immediate circumstances (given that

strictly speaking, no-one could have done otherwise since all events are caused).    He illustrates his

solution using both the golfer example and the Prediction Room (know these).       The upshot of the

prediction room is that even if there an omniscient God that could predict all of our actions, we would

still be free if we could have done otherwise relative to the immediate circumstances.

Philosophy of Religion:

1.  Three proofs for the existence of God:

a)  Argument from design (teleological proof):  is an a posteriori argument (i.e., an argument based on

experience) for the existence of God. There are two versions of the teleological proof: i) analogical

version (Paley) which uses the analogy with an artifact such as a watch and ii) non-analogical version

----------------------- 页面 3-----------------------

                                                      3

(Aquinas) which does not make use of any analogies.  Both arguments involve the premise that design

implies purpose, which implies a maker.

b)  Ontological proof – is an a priori argument (i.e., an argument based on reason) for the existence of

God. We saw versions of this proof in the fifth Meditation of Descartes.    The version we will examine

today involves a style of reasoning known as a reductio ad absurdum style of reasoning.

c)  Cosmological proof – is an attempt to prove God’s existence by arguing that not all beings can be

dependent, in which case there is at least one independent being whose existence is self-explained.       This

proof makes use of the principle of sufficient reason, one version being that every thing and every fact

must have an explanation.

2. [if time permits] Aquinas’ five ways – are five attempts to prove God’s existence.

a)  The argument from motion and the argument from efficient causes – are variations of the

cosmological proof.

Argument from motion:

Assumptions: There is at least one thing in motion. Anything that moves is moved by another.       A thing

moves another thing only if it is in motion.

Suppose: x is in motion.  Then:  y moved x. Then: y is in motion. Etc.  Since an infinite regress of

motions is impossible, there must be at least one unmoved mover.

Argument from efficient causes:

Assumptions: Every event has a cause which is also an event.    The cause is distinct from and prior to

the effect.

Suppose: x is an event. Then, x is caused by y, where y is prior to x. Then: y is an event. Etc.  Since

an infinite regress of causes is impossible, it follows that there is at least one uncaused cause.

b)  The argument from contingency is a variation of the cosmological and ontological proofs.

Definitions:  A necessary being could not fail to exist. A contingent being could just as easily have

existed as not existed.

Consequences of definitions:    Necessary beings have no beginning and end whereas contingent beings

have both a beginning and an end.

Proof:  Suppose everything including the universe is contingent.       Then there was a time when the

universe did not exist. Then something came from nothing.       Contradiction! Thus, there is at least one

contingent being.

c)  The argument from purpose – is simply the non-analogical version of the design proof.

d)  The argument from knowledge of perfection – is a variation of Plato’s doctrine of the Forms.

3. Hume’s criticisms of the design proof:    (contra Paley’s analogical design proof)

a)  All that the design proof establishes is that there are possibly many makers.

b)  Given that knowledge is based on experience, and given that I have never experienced aother

universe being made, I can’t know that it had a maker.

c)  There is a disanalogy between the watch and the universe – the universe is more like an organism

than an artifact.

2. Mill’s criticisms of the design proof: (contra Aquinas’ non-analogical argument from purpose)

a)  The theory of  evolution is an alternative explanation for the complexity of the human eye.

----------------------- 页面 4-----------------------

                                                      4

b)  Even if teleological explanations are correct, all that follows is that God is possibly finite with

respect to power, knowledge, and benevolence.

(Advantages of a finite God – solves the problem of evil and the problem of free will.)

3.  Pascal’s recipe vs. the wager – the recipe is only meant to induce investigation into the God question

where the wager is intended to induce belief.

Know the 3 kinds of people that Pascal claims exists re: religious belief.

Recipe – don’t try to convert and make the person aware of the human condition, which is bleak.

Wager – the worst that could happen if we believe is less worse that the worst that could happen if we

don’t believe.

4. The last set of topics we will look at re: philosophy of religion are agnosticism vs. atheism/theism,

and the meaningfulness of the God hypothesis.

a. Agnosticisim – differs from atheism in that the agnostic neither believes that God (gods) exist nor that

God doesn’t exist. That is, they suspend belief until there is adequate evidence to make a decision.

b. Huxley – claims that he coined the phrase “agnostic” which comes from the Latin “ab” (away from)

and “gnosis” means secret knowledge.    He was disappointed by the fact that his professors claimed to

know things that they couldn’t back up with evidence or reasons.       Thus, the intellectually honest thing to

do is to suspend belief.

c. Clifford – provides a moral argument for being agnostic re: the God question.       He uses a ship-owner

analogy. Know the details and relevance of the analogy.

d.  William James – is a famous pragmatist philosopher who argued 1) that theism/atheism are

permissible and respectable alternatives to agnosticism when there is no forthcoming evidence, and 2)

that agnosticism is less plausible than either theism or atheism.    Know the details of James’ arguments

for both claims.

e. Logical positivism was a popular movement in philosophy in the early and mid part of the 20th

century.  The most notable positivist was A.J. Ayer who proposed the following criterion for the

meaningfulness or ordinary language statements:

p is meaningful =df. Either p is a truth of math/logic or p is empirically verifiable/falsifiable.

What this criterion of meaningfulness implies is that religious and ethical statements are without

meaning. E.g stealing is wrong or God exists are statements that are neither truths of logic nor

empirically verifiable/falsifiable.

On other other hand, Karl Popper argued that what is important for statements in science is that they are

falsifiable. A good theory rules out certain observations such that if any of these observations occurred,

then the theory is falsified.

f. Anthony Flew – from a falsificationist stance argued that religious statements are not falsifiable,

given that believers always introduce ad hoc hypotheses to salvage their beliefs from falsification.  Eg.,

God is good entails that evil doesn’t exist. But evil does exist.  However, the believer explains away the

existence of evil by arguing that evil is part of God’s plan, etc. (witness Descartes)

Know Flew’s desert in the oasis metaphor.

----------------------- 页面 5-----------------------

                                                            5

g.  John Hick argued that religious statements are meaningful given that they are verifiable – but in a

non-standard way.    They are “eschatologically verifiable” in the sense that a) they affect how we live

our lives and b) we will know them to be true in the eschaton (end of time).

Know Hick’s criteria of verification and his winding road metaphor.

Epistemology – is the branch of science which is concerned with how and if we know anything.                      We

have already seen theories of epistemology in both Plato and Nietzsche.             Today, we look at some

contemporary problems in epistemology plus some attempts to solve them.

Until the advent of Gettier’s article “Is justified true belief knowledge”? in 1963, philosophers generally

accepted the “justified true belief” analysis of knowledge (JTB approach)

S knows that p iff 1) S believes that p, 2) p is true, and 3) S is justified in believing p.

Notice the parallels with Plato’s account of knowledge in the Meno?

The key debate in epistemology relative to this analysis was how to make sense of the concept of

justification.  Some attempts involved analyzing the concept of justification in terms of coherenc, some

in terms of correspondence, and still others appeal to a pragmatic account of justification.

However, Gettier’s article rocked the epistemological boat.          Gettier presented a counter-example to the

JTB approach where all three conditions are satisfied, and yet we would not say that the agent knows.

This sparked 40 years of literature in response.       Know the details of Gettier’s arguments.       His article can

be accessed for free, online, at http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/tk/gettier.html

Responses to the Gettier paradox:

                                                                                                      th

1)  Internalist responses – retained the JTB approach and tried to salvage it by finding a 4 condition

that would avoid a Gettier-type paradox.       The problem is that some clever philosopher or other would

come up with a clever counterexample to this adumbrated JTB approach.                An example of an internalist

solution to Gettier’s paradox is Lehrer’s article (see Castell).       Know this.

2)  Externalist responses – rejected the JTB approach and instead analysed knowledge in terms of

whether the agent was (causally) hooked up to the environment in the right sort of way.                As an example,

see Goldman’s article (in Castell).    Know this.

Hume’s skepticism:

According to Hume, all that we know are our perceptions.             Thus, we have no direct acquaintance with

physical objects – they are merely logical fictions built up out of perceptions.          There are 2 kinds of

perceptions – impressions (more vivid) and ideas (less vivid).          Hume argued that we are intellectually

justified in holding a belief only if it is based in impressions.       This led to skepticism with respect to a)

the existence of physical objects, b) the existence of an enduring self, c) causation, d) empirical

induction. Know Hume’s arguments for each of these.

Kant’s answer to Hume:

Kant argued that Hume had it all wrong – we don’t justify our belief in objects, personal identity and

causation in terms of experience.       Rather, experience is possible only if these concepts (categories) are

already in place.    Know the following from Kant:       categories, forms of intuition, transcendental

deduction, transcendental unity of apperception, phenomenon vs. noumenon.

----------------------- 页面 6-----------------------

                                                   6

Ethics:

In philosophical ethics, there are two key normative theories, the goal of which is to give us an account

of what a right action is:

a)  Consequentialism – assesses the rightness or wrongness of actions by focusing on their results.

There are three key consequentialist theories: ethical egoism, which focuses on the results for the

individual actor, and utilitarianism, which focuses on the results for society as a whole.

b)  Deontological theories such as Kantianism and a Rawlsian theory of justice focus on the motives

behind the actions, the important motive being duty.    Moral rules are categorical imperatives which

admist of no exceptions, although R.M. Hare advocated a conditionalized deontology where duties are

determined by context.

1.  Utilitarian ethics – developed by Bentham and Mill.

Mill’s version involved 2 key principles, viz., the theory of the good which states that the highest good

for humanity is happiness defined as the presence of pleasure and the privation of pain, and the principle

of utility, which states that an action is right if it promotes the general happiness.

Objection to Mill’s theory: It would allow for slavery provided that it promotes the general happiness.

A fuller version of utilitarianism involves three key claims: a) Only consequences matter in evaluating

actions, b) happiness is the most important consequence, and c)    the interests of one person is

outweighed by the interests of the whole.

Key objections to b); other things matter besides happiness such as loyalty and trust.

Key objections to a): If only consequences matter, then in some cases it would be permissible to punish

the innocent, to break promises, and to violate human rights.

Rule Utilitarianism – is an attempt to rescue utilitarianism from the objections with respect to a). RU

focuses on consequences not of individual actions but instead on the consequences of following rules

that govern these actions.

According to RU, an act is right =df. it coheres with a rule in a system of rules such that if adhered to

consistently over time maximize social utility (vs. other systems of rules)

Thus, with RU, it would be wrong to punish an innocent person even if in the short term the benefits to

society outweigh the costs, given that the rule that it is wrong to punish the innocent maximizes utility to

a greater degree than the rule that it is permissible to punish the innocent.

However, J..L. Mackie argues that RU reduces to AU (the version of utilitarianism which focuses on the

consequences of individual actions vs. rules). In the above example, there is a rule intermediate

between the two mentioned which maximizes utility to a greater degree than either of them:

----------------------- 页面 7-----------------------

                                                   7

It is sometimes permissible to punish the innocent.  When? When the benefits to society outweigh the

costs. However, this is exactly what the AU theorist would say.    Thus, RU is really AU.

2. Kantian ethics – involves the central claim that the highest good is not happiness but rather a good

will, where a will is defined as a power or capacity to deduce duty from moral law.

The will, according to Kant, is influenced by a) emotion and b) reason. A good will is influenced by

reason alone as a will influenced by emotion will water down moral rules to suit its purposes.

For Kant, an act is right only if it both accords with and is motivated by duty. Additional motives of

actions that have no moral worth for Kant are a) self-interest (honest grocer case) and b) inclination

(instinct of self-preservation). Kant claims that only actions motivated by duty have moral worth.

A moral duty is a specific rule such as “don’t lie” or “don’t steal” and it is deducible from a universal

moral law known as the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative admits of no exceptions (vs.

hypothetical imperatives which are conditioned by antecedent wants – e.g. “if you want friends, don’t

lie”) Kant maintains that only categorical imperatives have moral value since they are not conditioned

and hence they are universally binding.

Three key versions of the categorical imperative.

Version 1:  Always act in such a way that the rule governing your action can be willed to be a universal

moral law.

Version 2:  Always act in such a way that you treat humanity either collectively or individually not

merely as a means but as an end in itself.

A third version of the imperative is derivable from the above two and its significance is that it makes

ethics our invention:

Version 3:  Persons as rational ends in themselves are the makers of universal moral law.

Finally, Kant maintains that in order to deduce duty from moral law, the individual must be abstracted

from desires and emotions. Thus, morality is only possible in such an ideal situation, which Kant calls a

“kingdom of ends”

A kingdom of ends =df. a systematic union of rational individuals abstracted from their subjective goals

and purposes and united under the categorical imperative.

Three additional conditions for ethics, according to Kant, are a) God exists, b) we are autonomous, c)

we are immortal. He calls these “postulates of practical reason” because any attempt to prove them

would lead to antinomies.

3. Comparison and Contrast of Mill and Kant:

Moral issue                   What Kant would say          What Mill would say

What is the highest good?    A good will.                   Happiness

----------------------- 页面 8-----------------------

                                                   8

What is a moral rule?          Universal                      General/situational

How are actions assessed?    Motive – duty                Consequences – general

                                                               happiness

Is moral action possible?    Only in a kingdom of ends.       Only if one has a conscience

Are moral sanctions needed?    No – we make moral law.       Yes – conscience is needed

A Roster of Ethical Theories

1)  Psychological egoism (PE) is a descriptive theory of ethics which rests on the assumptions that all

human beings are by nature selfish. Thus, all actions are inherently selfish – there are no altruistic acts.

Support for the theory – a) we can only do what we want to do, b) we act altruistically to derive

pleasure.  What are the flaws with these arguments?

Attempts to refute the theory – a) the theory conflates the terms pleasure, selfish and self-interest, and b)

it is empirically unverifiable.

2) Ethical egoism (EE) is a normative theory of ethics which makes no assumptions about human nature.

It is the view that we should only act to benefit ourselves. Thus, it is a consequentialist theory of ethics.

Support for EE: a) Ann Ryand’s argument that the self is of supreme importance, b) the dual arguments

that the best way to help other is to help ourselves and the best way to help ourselves is to help others.

Know the flaws with these arguments

Arguments against EE:    a) Kurt Baier’s K and B arguments (know these) and b) questioning the

assumption that my interests are more important than everyone elses’.

3)  Cultural relativism is the view that there are no universal moral values. This is taken to follow from

the premise that societies differ markedly in their moral values (known as the cultural differences

argument).

Three key objections to this theory – a) the premise is false, b) the conclusion is false, c) the

conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the premises.

4)  Divine command theory – is the view that an action is obligatory if it is commanded by God, and

forbidden if it is forbidden by God. Also, an action is permissible if it is not forbidden by God.

Key objection to this theory – the Euthyphro dilemma.  Know what this is.

5)  Natural law theory – is the view that a) every event has a purpose, b) there are laws of nature that

reflect these purposes, and c) God has given the faculty of reason which enables us to apprehend the

laws of nature.

Key objection to this theory – the atheist and the theist can both be moral, so God drops away as

irrelevant. Also, the theory commits the naturalistic fallacy.

6)  Simple subjectivism – is the view that an act is right if I approve, and wrong if I disapprove. This

theory comes from David Hume’s views on ethics.

Key objection: Everyone is morally infallible. There is also no room for ethical disagreement.

6)  Emotivism – is a theory of moral language.    According to the emotivist, saying “stealing is wrong”

means a) Yuk! and b) “don’t steal.” Thus, making a moral claim involves expressing one’s emotions

and issuing an imperative.

----------------------- 页面 9-----------------------

                                                   9

Key objection:  Anything can be used to resolve a moral disagreement.

7) Virtue ethics – developed by Plato and Aristotle, focuses not on actions, but rather on moral

character.  It is an attempt to provide an account of what makes a person morally good.    According to

Aristotle, a morally good person is someone who is disposed to act in accordance with virtue.       And,

virtue is an acquired disposition to act between two exremes (the golden mean)

Key objection to virtue ethics: the incompleteness problem.  Know what this is.

8)  Hobbes’ social contract theory – is an attempt to give an account of ethics in terms of the concept of

social contract.  The idea is that the social contract is an attempt to escape a state of nature where there

are no morals and laws.

Support for the theory: the prisoners’ dilemma (know what this is)

Objections to the theory: what about civil disobedience. Also, the theory does not readily accommodate

the view that animals have rights.

John Rawls’ theory of social justice – an extension of Kant’s theory

John Rawls proposes a neo-Kantian theory of justice that regards the principles of justice as categorical

and universal.  Further, his concept of “veil of ignorance” parallels Kant’s concept of “kingdom of

ends.”

Before formulating his principles of social (distributive) justice, Rawls outlines the requirement that any

such theory must satisfy if it is to be a serious contender for a theory of what constitutes a fair

distribution of benefits and burdens in a society.  I.e., this requirement is a condition of adequacy.

Material principle of justice is the view that people who are relevantly similar should be treated

similarly and people who are relevantly dissimilar should be treated dissimilarly .

Notice that any theory of justice that allows for religious, ethnic, gender-based or racial discrimination

would be automatically ruled out as a viable theory of justice – since these dissimilarities are not

relevant.  Then besides Rawls’ own theory of justice, what other kinds of theories of justice that could

be viable contenders as theories of distributive justice? Here are some examples:

Capitalist theory of justice is the view that economic benefits should be distributed according to

contribution to society.

Socialist theory of justice is the view that economic benefits should be distributed according to need and

economic burdens should be distributed according to ability.

Egalitarian theory of justice is the view that economic and political benefits should be distributed

equally amongst everyone.

You can verify for yourselves that all of these theories pass the muster of the material principle of

justice. What Rawls needs to do is convince us that his theory is better than any of these competing

theories.  What follows is a brief outline of his argument:

Rawls asks us to perform a thought experiment – suppose there are no laws, no authority, no society

with an economic and political system, and no shared culture or literature.    We are about to form a

society and as a first step to doing this, we need to construct principles of distributive justice – principles

----------------------- 页面 10-----------------------

                                                   10

of fairness for the distribution of benefits and burdens in the new society. These principles, says Rawls,

will determine the economic and political institutions of the new society.    What methods would we use

to choose our principles of distributive justice?

According to Rawls, the principles of justice must be chosen in an initial position under a veil of

ignorance to ensure that fair principles of justice are chosen.

The initial position =df. a hypothetical situation that antedates society where principle of justice

determining distribution of benefits and burdens will be chosen.

The veil of ignorance =df. the participants in the initial position are ignorant of a)  their political

conception of the good, b) their education, and c) their economic status.

Rawls maintains that the initial position so characterized will ensure that fair principles of justice are

chosen since each participant will want to benefit from their choice no matter what status they already

have once the veil of ignorance is lifted.  This ensures impartiality – based on self-interested motives.

Finally, Rawls stipulates that each participant in the initial position will be maximally rational and

mutually disinterested.

A person is maximally rational =df. they are able to use to most effective means to realize their ends.

The participants are mutually disinterested =df. the participants are looking out for their own interests

and have no concern with the interests of others except insofar as it furthers their own interests.

The mutual disinterest requirement has apparent elements of ethical egoism although Rawls goes to

great lengths to deny this.

Rawls claims that maximally rational and mutually disinterested participants in the initial position will

choose the following principles of justice – assuming they are under the veil of ignorance:

Principle relating to distribution of political goods (civil liberties):  Each person is to have equal access

to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for everyone.

Principle relating to distribution of economic goods (wealth, status):  Inequalities in the distribution of

economic goods are to be tolerated provided that a)  the positions to which these inequalities attach are

open to all and b) it can be reasonably expected that everyone will benefit from these inequalities.

The first principle of justice relating to political goods is egalitarian whereas the second principle

relating to economic goods is in-egalitarian. The second principle resembles utilitarianism because it

requires that people benefit from the inequalities, although it is not utilitarian because the requirement is

that everyone must benefit – not just the majority.

Rawls also notes that the first principle relating to liberties is prior to the second principle in the sense

that we cannot trade of civil liberties for economic gains.

Rawls’ argument for why his principles of justice would be chosen in the initial position:

----------------------- 页面 11-----------------------

                                                   11

Rawls argues that the maximally rational mutually disinterested participants in the initial position under

the veil of ignorance would chose his principles vs., say, capitalist, socialist, or purely egalitarian

principles given that they will use the following criterion to make their choice:

Maximin principle states that in the absence of the knowledge of probabilities of outcomes, always

choose that option that generates the least worst possible outcome.

Since the participants are maximally rational, they would use the maximin principle given that it is the

most effective way to realize their end of choosing principles of justice – given that everyone is under

the veil of ignorance and so they don’t know how things will turn out once the veil is lifted.

Rawls contends that his principles of justice would be chosen over other principles because the worst

possible outcomes of choosing his principles are less worse than the worst possible outcomes of

choosing alternative principles. Think of the worst that could happen if they chose egalitarian, socialist

or capitalist principles of justice. These cannot happen – supposedly – under Rawls’ system.

Implications for distributing resources to under-developed nations:  If we accept Rawls’ principles of

justice, would we have a duty to feed the poor?

作者: ArtPosta 時間: 2008-6-21 02:48 PM

版友你直接將你上堂啲筆記擺上黎呀???

歡迎光臨娛樂滿紛 26FUN (http://26fun.com./bbs/)