ormuz: (bw)
[personal profile] ormuz
чомусь дуже мені нагадує Йейтса "Великодній парад", всі відомі мені переклади на россійську мову жахливі до ступеня огиди.
Ролза неймовірно тяжко читати і самого по собі. Через кожну сторінку я протискаюся як український диверсант до окупованого Криму, щоб тільки не читати - я вже прослухав лекції цього дядечки , і цього . До речі, дуже рекомендую обох.

І як людина, що неочікуванно для себе вже майже стала лібералом, скажу, що головна проблема сучасного лібералізму, це те що ніхто не знає що воно таке, ніхто цього Ісаю Берліна не читав, а розбирати що має на увазі Обама, коли каже "You din't build that", досить важко.

Date: 2016-08-20 04:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] Тестов Тестов (from livejournal.com)
You have never expressed your political persuasion, but my bad memory reminds me about your calling yourself "a leftie" once. Does "almost becoming a liberal" then represent a change in substance or just a change in a name?

As to what liberalism is - I like AK's view. Liberalism is a persuasion of people who consider human affairs mostly along the oppressor - oppressed axis, the other two being the civilization - barbarism axis (conservatives) and the coercion - freedom axis (libertarians) .

Date: 2016-08-20 02:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ormuz.livejournal.com
As almost liberal, i guess, i should say, than in substance or in original position all of us are liberals.
I am not SCOTUS or something for the difference between substance and name to make any sense - i wouldn't vote (i actually can't) for Trump not on anti-conservative grounds (in fact, i would be ok with his conservatism).

I am still certainly "leftie" in regards of Ukraine, it needs drastic changes, "status quo" is not an option.

"Almost liberal" means that i will definitely try to employ "liberal" kind of analysis - veil of ignorance, moral arbitrariness, etc.

Date: 2016-08-20 04:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] Тестов Тестов (from livejournal.com)
>all of us are liberals.

I am not so confident. A consequentialist is not a liberal. A deontologist is not a liberal either.

Rawls claims that the veil of ignorance leads to outcomes that are - theoretically - "fair to all". Now imagine that the real manifold of "fair to all" outcomes is empty. This makes Rawls theory empty, too, no?

Also the concept of a "worst-off" individual (and a "better-off" individual) demands the existence of a comparison device. Imagine that human well-being is multi-dimensional. Suddenly ordering is impossible, there is no way to rank the welfare of two human beings, and the theory is empty again.

Count me a sceptic.

Date: 2016-08-20 09:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ormuz.livejournal.com
we are not trying to fix life itself - life is not fair, there is no fix for that.
we are trying to agree to society construction (well, it is some kind of redistribution, don't need to hide this fact) under the veil, so it is just (with this worst-off individual difference principle).
the worst case here is no redistribution at all, lets be libertarian - we can't end-up without any outcomes.

don't think there is any problem with location of worst-off guy. (though i am still reading a book), life is unfair, while our distribution should be fair - Rawls would likely take some index of goods, and measure consumption of these goods or so. no need to have interpersonal comparison of utility.

so far, it is extremely clever thing. when i finish the book - will write some more.

Date: 2016-08-21 04:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] Тестов Тестов (from livejournal.com)
Suppose the worst-off individual is found and it's an alcoholic who, by the fact of being an alcoholic, not by a chance, ruined his chances to have a decent life, to make a meaningful contribution to society, and at the moment desperately needs a liver transplant. What then?

I don't believe preferences can be normalized to a common denominator.

But I do envy your optimism.
Edited Date: 2016-08-21 04:03 am (UTC)

Date: 2016-08-23 12:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ormuz.livejournal.com
technically, problem that Rawls is trying to solve - is to have such a way of distributing liver, that two persons with completely different utility functions agree upon in advance, not knowing who would need liver transplant, and what life is going to be for them.

he claims, btw, the fact that one of them would become alcoholic by choice is irrelevant for the distribution "reasonable persons would agree on".

> But I do envy your optimism.

hah, we, almost liberals, can destroy this world, you know. with this optimism.


ormuz: (Default)

December 2016

1112131415 1617

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 12:17 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios