I'm an almost graduate in philosophy and this is probably the best quick summary of Rawls I've seen so far. Obviously as we all know philosophy can't be boiled down to a few minutes, but you certainly explain yourself very well!
Great insights. However, i would argue that Rawl's theory is challenging in practice. I mean, no one, literally no one would ignore their own biased view of advantage. And further implications down the line of implementing his concept seems to create more inequality than equality.
Thank you for the simple explanation of the principles of Rawls' theory of justice. However, my question relates to what are the three main theories of justice according to Rawls? Are these the same as the principles stated earlier?
Rawls, is saying it is good if the stars or people who need it gain more wealth, therefore a redistribution of wealth would cause equality and is justified. Because these people that would earn more, like a doctor or a tech artisan would essentially do better for more people. But the "way" he phrases it, is weird. It becomes ambiguous, he is almost saying let us have inequality so equality comes, but that's not what it is. Not at all!!! It is however, now read this literally, "we want a redistribution of wealth that causes equality". Which is not the same as having, "we want inequality that causes equality". The first keeps the inequality and kind of muffles it away as being a force for equality. The other is trying to deliberately reach equality by being responsible in distributing assets and resources to those who can do more with it and have big returns for all. The emphasis should be very different.
I'm an almost graduate in philosophy and this is probably the best quick summary of Rawls I've seen so far. Obviously as we all know philosophy can't be boiled down to a few minutes, but you certainly explain yourself very well!
Thanks!
Great. I was struggling with my first reading of Rawls, but this talk has explained some key concepts and has made things a lot clearer
Glad to read it
This was a fantastic explanation. Thank you for making this so accessible.
You’re very welcome. Glad you enjoyed it!
This is amazing! Thank you for explaining his two principles so clearly!
You're welcome!
This has been extremely helpful, thanks so much!
Glad to read it
So nicely explained sir 😊 🙏🙏 thank you 😊
I like explanations like this. Thank you and Dr. RAWLS.
You’re welcome
sending thanks and appreciation from UK.
You'e welcome!
Great insights. However, i would argue that Rawl's theory is challenging in practice. I mean, no one, literally no one would ignore their own biased view of advantage. And further implications down the line of implementing his concept seems to create more inequality than equality.
Everything worth thinking about is challenging in practice.
And no
Thank you for the simple explanation of the principles of Rawls' theory of justice. However, my question relates to what are the three main theories of justice according to Rawls? Are these the same as the principles stated earlier?
th-cam.com/video/xgf2jztjaF4/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for the concise explanation.
You're welcome!
Where can we find what rawls views were on marx?
Reading his texts would be a start, wouldn't it?
Thank you so much for the videos.
You're welcome!
Very helpful thank you.
You’re welcome
Really helpful
Glad to read it
Love it thank you
You're welcome!
Based
Rawls, is saying it is good if the stars or people who need it gain more wealth, therefore a redistribution of wealth would cause equality and is justified. Because these people that would earn more, like a doctor or a tech artisan would essentially do better for more people.
But the "way" he phrases it, is weird. It becomes ambiguous, he is almost saying let us have inequality so equality comes, but that's not what it is. Not at all!!! It is however, now read this literally, "we want a redistribution of wealth that causes equality". Which is not the same as having, "we want inequality that causes equality". The first keeps the inequality and kind of muffles it away as being a force for equality. The other is trying to deliberately reach equality by being responsible in distributing assets and resources to those who can do more with it and have big returns for all.
The emphasis should be very different.
No idea what you’re trying to say. Rewrite or delete
@@GregoryBSadler and now?
You've misread him. Give the text another more attentive read
@@GregoryBSadler I shall do that.