Prof. Hancock introduced me to Rawls and therefore most of my reflection on the subject has been through the lens Hancock presented for me. My capstone paper there was a critique of Berlin’s two concepts of liberty using Rawls as an example in which negative liberty becomes positive. From the LDS perspective, the first troubling aspect was his exclusion of “unreasonable” religious beliefs from public discourse. (Sorry if this is vague — its been a while.)

The second trouble that comes to mind, and the part of Rawls that leaves me undecided, is his malleable view of human nature (this is what Hancock seemed to object to the most in my recollection) — and belief that government can and should make people better or more just (this was my “positive liberty” argument, of course). On one hand is the classic LDS “Satan’s plan” analogy/argument against such an idea. On the other hand — what is so wrong with using government mechanisms to help people practice virtue and hopefully become better?

I’m now in my second year of law school and the liberal legal bugaboo has gotten a bit of a hold on me. Or, alternatively viewed, I’ve begun to believe that many “liberal” political beliefs are more in line with the gospel than I previously expected. So I’m pretty excited to take another Rawls-based class next semester. I’m going to withhold conclusions until I’ve studied things more carefully and almost surely from a different perspective.

Thanks. I am visiting (teaching for a year or two) Ralph’s department this year. He very much does not like Rawls’ theory. I think he audited a class from Rawls, though Hancock was in the government department and not philosophy where Rawls was.. Anyways, Ralph is part of my inspiration. He thinks that my argument does not work. So, I have taken that as a challenge. He is also very supportive and encouraging of me personally. His critique will most surely be vital to the success of my project, even in opposition.

What do you think?

Thanks for your comment. Rawls very much feels that markets have a place in a good society. But markets are not a good in and of themselves, they are only good to the extent that they achieve and advance other social goods. In many ways, most socialists, including John Roemer, have adopted this view of markets in advocating liberal market socialism. I am somewhat sympathetic to the critique of the late English socialist philosopher G.A. Cohen who felt the Rawls was too comfortable with market inequalities. However, I think that Rawls only tolerates inequalites to a very limited degree.

The veil of ignorance within the original position is central to my interest (at least my interest in connecting these two parts of my thinking). Bushman and Givens have made remarks about this aspect of Mormon thought and Rawls. While I have thought of it since my undergrad days, their comments have encouraged me (without them knowing it) to pursue this line of study within political philosophy and Mormon Studies. I will be addressing the veil of ignorance further soon.

All: thanks for the kind comments. Smallaxe: I will repond to you later today. I better get the daughter to pre-school.

A helpful analogy for the economic difference principle is its political counterpart (Rawls himself presents this as a rationale). We are comfortable with differences in political power (i.e. we don’t demand a system in which all individuals are equally responsible for the articulation, execution, and interpretation of laws, but instead allow representatives, presidents, judges, etc., to perform such functions on our behalf), even very stratified differences, to the extent that those differences produce benefits for all citizens. Rawls understood the benefits of industrial capitalism in terms of wealth creation, poverty reduction, etc. But he was also cautious of its potential to engender insurmountable obstacles toward economic advancement for the economically disadvantaged, and argued that a political economy crafted from behind the veil would contain strong mechanisms for countering the disadvantages that would result from being born in a poor family. So he argues for things like high taxes on inheritance and a robust, well-funded system of public education that treats all students, regardless of socioeconomic background, equally.

I think there are problems with Rawls, but this is compelling, compelling stuff. Especially for Mormons.

Can you clarify 2b? Maybe even provide an example?