I'd like to draw some parallels between the points raised by Hum (Hum's Pol Philling) and Chris (words unto chris).
Chris asks about what counts as "rational self interest" and wonders whether it can really be as contentless as Rawls seems to think. If we don't know anything about our (personal or public) position in society, as the Original Position requires, what remains of self-interest? Conversely, doesn't self-interest (rational or otherwise) actually operate from a substantial basis - such as which neighbourhood group we belong to, in Chris' example? What is self-interest, exactly, and what is its political significance?
Hum asks some similar questions in relation to difference feminism. Should feminism be about regarding and treating everyone as equal, and therefore the same (a bit like the way Rawls sees everyone as the same in the Original Position)? Or should it at equality by recognising, but trying to overcome differences (as in the positive discrimination in employment example)? Or should it be about recognising and affirming, even celebrating at least some of the differences between people, especially between men and women? Another way of asking these questions might be to wonder if "rational self-interest" is the same for men and women...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
On the topic of feminism and equality with respect to Rawls:
It is inarguable that in at least SOME ways [however crude- eg just physical differenes extending from body parts to hormones], men and women are different, and unequal.
An important example is the fact that women give birth and men do not. When applying 'equality', it seems quite offensive to think that in terms of child rearing, men and women are equal. Imposing equality in this way seems very unjust. In the workplace, we get paid for the work we do, but for some reason, the work that mothers (or fathers who raise children alone) do to raise children is not financially rewarded.
It seems that one aspect of feminism is gaining acknowledgemnet that women have the right to vote and work, but it seems that we still have children, and many mothers raise children without fathers, and thus- women are now raising children and working on top of that (!) in order to raise the children. I find Rawls' original position and veil of ignorance to be very satisfying in terms of the natural inequalities that exist between males and females. For it is interesting to ponder, if one was to ask a given male "How much money would you ask for to go through pregnancy, childbirth, and child rearing?" and see how they would honestly respond if someone said to them 'How about no money at all? or a minimal supplement from the government that wouldn't be enough to provide adequately for yoru child without working on top of that?'
Rawls' justice as FAIRNESS coupled with the original position seems to be more conducive to 'embracing and acknowledging inequalties' (as i think it was you said justine) than merely striving for absolute equality in every way. Sometimes equality can seem unfair!
Post a Comment