In that example about the 4 economic structures, I think A would be a better outcome actually. I mean I get that the lowest group gets the most money in C so C should be prioritized, but then C is also where the middle group and most advantaged are making much more than the least advantages. So even if objectively the least advantages are better off in C, they’re not actually gonna be happier in C because they see lots of other people earning much more than them, and that’s just gonna make them miserable, or at best, not very happy with their situation as much. In A they might be much happier, because they don’t see any other group making much more than them, so they don’t feel inferior in any way. That’s just my take. Thanks for making the video :)
That's an interesting point of view. I think that while the appeal of Economy A is in its egalitarian, equal value, it does not pair well with a market economy. Perfect equality in an economy leaves no room for incentive to grow. In Economy C, while the lower class still earns the least, it has a livable, satisfactory wage, with which it can contribute to the economy effectively (by consuming products), while also leaving room for those with enough money to purchase capital goods and land to improve the economy. A key characteristic of Rawls's approach is its accommodation for pluralism.
To me it's a question of why would anyone want more than anyone else? Why would you want more than what you need to survive and be healthy? It doesn't make sense to me. Everyone should have access to food, housing, medicine and mental health support.
You have hit the nail right on the head....great
Clearest explanation I've seen of these 2 concepts 👌🏼
Glad it was helpful!
Wonderfully explained, thank you so much !!😊
That meme at the beginning is legit.
Haha, thanks!
Thanks for these videos!
No problem, I'm glad you like them!
In that example about the 4 economic structures, I think A would be a better outcome actually. I mean I get that the lowest group gets the most money in C so C should be prioritized, but then C is also where the middle group and most advantaged are making much more than the least advantages. So even if objectively the least advantages are better off in C, they’re not actually gonna be happier in C because they see lots of other people earning much more than them, and that’s just gonna make them miserable, or at best, not very happy with their situation as much. In A they might be much happier, because they don’t see any other group making much more than them, so they don’t feel inferior in any way. That’s just my take. Thanks for making the video :)
That's an interesting point of view. I think that while the appeal of Economy A is in its egalitarian, equal value, it does not pair well with a market economy. Perfect equality in an economy leaves no room for incentive to grow. In Economy C, while the lower class still earns the least, it has a livable, satisfactory wage, with which it can contribute to the economy effectively (by consuming products), while also leaving room for those with enough money to purchase capital goods and land to improve the economy. A key characteristic of Rawls's approach is its accommodation for pluralism.
To me it's a question of why would anyone want more than anyone else? Why would you want more than what you need to survive and be healthy? It doesn't make sense to me. Everyone should have access to food, housing, medicine and mental health support.