tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post6475538875190455854..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: Rawls and classical political economyDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-69850607929392355902012-04-03T13:00:57.298-04:002012-04-03T13:00:57.298-04:00Nathan, great link to Foley -- thanks! I'll th...Nathan, great link to Foley -- thanks! I'll think further, but the central impression I get is this. "Modern" economics is wedded to a rational actor model with a highly abstract conception of rationality. The design of the original position adopts this thin theory. Classical PE had a richer conception, more in line with modern critics like Sen. So Rawls's design of the OP shows him to be an adherent to modern economics rather than classical PE. but I'm not sure I'd read too much into this. The OP and the veil of ignorance are offered as conceptual frameworks Rawls chooses to capture the social contract view of fairness and unanimity. It's the affinity to Locke, Rousseau, and Kant that is more basic here. My quick opinion!Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-70334656567025724502012-04-03T02:08:35.449-04:002012-04-03T02:08:35.449-04:00Duncan Foley suggests here in a talk on Rationalit...Duncan Foley suggests here in a talk on Rationality in economics that the "veil of ignorance" is a fundamentally Neoclassical conception tied to the philosophical tradition of hobbes and locke that sits in contrast to classical political economy. I'm curious what your response is. Do you think that he is right on that point but not on Rawlsian analysis as a whole or is he just wrong?<br /><br /><br />http://homepage.newschool.edu/~foleyd/ratid.pdfNathan Tankushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16298104991209885385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-30690993717619759062012-04-02T20:53:23.931-04:002012-04-02T20:53:23.931-04:00Interesting post. Perhaps this is not different t...Interesting post. Perhaps this is not different than your interpretation, but primary goods seem to be a halfway house between the classical economists' conception of an objective standard (also shared by Plato and Aristotle, though the substantive standard is different) and characteristically modern commitment to autonomy, i.e., that each of us is free to choose our ends (which is more Kantian than Utilitarian).<br /><br />I think the reasoning leading up to the Difference Principle, especially in Rawls's post TOJ work, relies less on the Maximin decision criterion and more on 1) the egalitarian starting point and 2) the Pareto criterion whereby the parties add small increments of inequality until the point at which some lose at the expense of others' gains. Rawls's General Conception of Justice holds that inequalities are just only insofar as they work to everyone's advantage (judged on the basis of an equal shares baseline).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11677815746117897839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-66219006460924519862012-04-01T21:25:21.938-04:002012-04-01T21:25:21.938-04:00So is Rawl's arguing that basic needs must be ...So is Rawl's arguing that basic needs must be met for any individual to further maximize his own utility? This seems to be much in line with Maslow's hierarchy of needs.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05755491969441126742noreply@blogger.com