In this 2009 posting, The Hannibal Blog, discusses (approvingly) Rawls’ concept of the “veil of ignorance.” It’s a good discussion.
James Pilant
In this 2009 posting, The Hannibal Blog, discusses (approvingly) Rawls’ concept of the “veil of ignorance.” It’s a good discussion.
James Pilant
Comments are closed.
I came to know of John Rawls Theory of Justice only through Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice which is dedicated to John Rawls. John Rawls obviously kindled the desire of justice to many a Nobel Laureates. Going through Amartya Sen’s book one that attracted most was his quote: “Justice Stephen Breyer has brought out with much force and clarity the importance of paying ‘attention to purpose and consequence’ in interpreting a democratic constitution, emphasizing the role of ‘consequences as an important yardstick to measure a given interpretation’s faithfulness to these democratic purposes.”
My study is on cost consequence and naturally I appreciated the comment of Stephen Breyer. I really want to meet him and discuss.
I am yet to gulp the idea of coming out with new jargons such as ‘transcendental theory of justice’ of Amartya Sen in Idea of Justice that many economists indulge in that in my measurement table of intangible never reaches to form a substance. It rovers around the scale of 2 as against the optimum scale of 5 that it stops with communication. Then it goes in for a review by the Nobel Authority to come out with a prize. It is never used and forever stays subtle. It is not the responsibility of the whole world to make it grow but the maker of this idea should propose the steps that would make it happen. For example, if we are trying to form a Humane Society there are practical events that had happened in the historical past that made a Humane Society function. Instead of theoretical exploration of Human Mind we need practical usage of Human Hands.
LikeLike