Watch these two very brief BBC animations describing two opposed points of view on wealth in society:
First, John Rawl's left-wing philosophy of economic equality. Second, Ayn Rand's right-wing philosophy of economic self interest. Then post your thoughts in a brief but substantive comment. Do you with agree with Rawls or Rand? Or do you think their positions are both flawed? If so, would you move in a more left-wing or right-wing direction, or would you try to find some middle ground instead? Finally, what examples support your point of view? Be careful of going too far in the direction of generalizing (assuming all cases are the same) or using anecdotal evidence (assuming one case proves how things usually are). [Try to think beyond your own experience as well, or to look into the complexities of it. For example, I have parents who rose from poverty to into the upper middle-class, but I know that part of that is due to my dad's natural intellectual talents which enabled him to get a job on Wall Street even though he hadn't been able to afford finishing college. And I can't deny my dad's effort OR the fact that this effort wouldn't have gone as far if he wasn't white, due to a lot of conscious and unconscious prejudice in our society (my dad's company has only in the past decade started to hire minorities for good positions). So I have to take ALL that into account...]
43 Comments
Emilie Weiner
2/23/2016 04:29:12 pm
I believe that Rawls has a point in saying that society would be a much fairer place if we all did live behind the veil, but I believe it is ignorant to say doing so is possible. Especially branching from the society we already exist in, transforming into a class-blind, almost Marxist view of money and the system is ridiculous. Those in power (in this case, those with money, do not want to give it up.) On the other hand, I find even more flaws in Rand's position, because it completely disregards human emotion and our natural empathy. In fact, she almost comes off as a sociopath. How could one possibly swear to a life never helping others? Being entirely selfish is certainly not moral, nor healthy. Coming from a personal stand point, I find it extremely difficult to chose a position on this. I quite obviously do not want to give up what I have, but similarly, I do not want to take opportunity from others. It's the idea that the pursuance of wealth is even possible in this country that drives so many Americans. I don't think being greedy is the answer, but taking hard work from those who earned it is just as wrong. Frankly, this is an issue that has always puzzled me and I have a lot of trouble coming up with any sort of solution. I look forward to debate to hear what others think.
Reply
2/23/2016 06:06:06 pm
I agree with what Em said wholeheartedly. While I do not feel strongly about much of what Ayn Rand believed, I am very interested in her views on objectivism and all that it entails. It is hard for me to take a staunch position because I feel I fall in the middle, although I would call myself a "left-winger" (I classify myself as somewhere between libertarian/socialist/liberal, a walking contradiction). The socialist part of me wants to tax the rich and break up big banks, while the libertarian side says people should be able to control what they have earned themselves. Frank(Fontaine)ly, this entire debate reminds me of the "Man or Parasite" question that Andrew Ryan brings up in the videogame Bioshock.
Reply
Biggs
2/24/2016 02:26:21 pm
Great connection Charlie - Andrew Ryan is BASED on Ayn Rand (the similarity of names and philosophies is obvious). In one of Rand's novels a guy founds this alternate society for "non-parasites" out in the mountains, just like Ryan does underwater with Rapture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKf4MtZ4RQA
Biggs
2/24/2016 02:34:38 pm
Emi, I agree with your point that the "veil of ignorance" is really impossible. We can't simply suspend all of our ideological and cultural conditioning, not to mention our personal history and subjective experiences of selfhood. Honestly, I think Rawls needs a much more outlandish scenario, like, "Aliens have taken over earth and are going to rearrange society completely, so you have no idea where you'll end up. What kind of a system would you want them to create?" In that case, I do think most people would want some kind of a system that allowed for equal opportunity - but as you say, equal opportunity is difficult to define, let alone achieve.
Reply
JB
2/24/2016 02:40:48 pm
As for Rand, there is a lot of speculation that she was in fact some kind of sociopath. She had a genius-level IQ, intense charisma, and what bordered on a cult of followers, all traits you find in other sociopaths. If you ever want a fascinating read, I have her biography, which is CRAZY.
Kelly Gagliano
2/24/2016 01:14:57 pm
I don't agree completely with either viewpoint. I feel as if both views are extremes (which I'm assuming Biggs picked on purpose). However, I would say that I lean more toward the right wing. Although I am more right winged, I rolled my eyes at some of the things that Rand said tbh. Human beings always have empathy and show care for others. That is unless you are a complete sociopath but in that case you'd be in the loony bin so it wouldn't matter that much. Anyway, humans never just look out for themselves. So from that fact, saying wealthy people always want to keep all of their money to themselves is definitely not true. While they of course want to keep a lot of it because they work very hard for what they earn, they will donate thousands of dollars to help others. Humans naturally help others. If you see a sad puppy on the street, you're gonna give it some food or take it to a shelter or even adopt it and keep it as your new lil' buddy. I know relating a puppy and people living in poverty is not the most solid argument but my point is still there. You feel me?
Reply
Biggs
2/24/2016 01:53:56 pm
Hah, good eye Kelly - I picked them because both Rand and Rawls are pretty ideologically pure examples of "right-wing" and "left-wing" who really oversimplify complex issues. I agree with you that empathy is part of human nature (which like Locke I think is multifaceted, unlike Hobbes or Rousseau's black-and-white views). And it's true that wealthy Americans donate a ton to charity (although a cynical person might argue that's because they get tax write-offs for it).
Reply
Molly Masonius
2/24/2016 02:29:16 pm
After watching both videos twice, I find myself agreeing with Ayn Rand just a little bit more. However, I think both are pretty flawed in different ways. In one hand, you have John Rawl, and people don't work extremely hard to earn their money just to have it taken away from them. In the other hand you have Rand. I do believe that there are certain times where one should be at least a little selfish, because in the end all you truly have is yourself and you should be able to do what makes you happy, but there's always a limit and she has gone way past the limit into just being heartless and greedy. It's human nature to be compassionate and have emotions and for her to have a total disregard for others is just insane. It's a tough call to make with Rawl and Rand being so polar opposite. There definitely needs to be more middle ground.
Reply
Haley Watson
2/24/2016 02:30:36 pm
In my opinion, Rand sounds a lot like communism (but maybe this is me hiding behind my own ignorant veil) , and as we’ve discussed in the past, communism typically turns into a failed system due to society’s selfishness/ human nature. Along with this, I don’t agree with Rand that humans typically live on reason than emotion. Emotion commonly supports our human nature rather than reason. It’s like when you’re answering a multiple choice question and you’re stuck between Option A or Option B. The teacher tells you to go with your gut feeling about Option A, but you know Option B may also be just as correct. I find the Rand and Rawl’s societies can be compared to Option A and Option B. Rand presents a society with equal opportunity and fairness, while Rawl supports a world where individuals only look out for themselves and whoever makes it to the top wins. As a society, we try to think that our world is fair and just for everyone, but in reality, most are trying to climb to the top of the economic ladder for their own sake.
Reply
Skye Post
2/24/2016 02:52:50 pm
So here's an idea, and it's not necessarily any more fair than taking money that wealthy people earned (Rawls economic equality), but it seems to kind of meet in the middle: What if we had a society more like Rand's, where people get the money they earned? Similar to the society we live in today...but there's a catch. Rather than creating welfare programs with ALL taxpayers' money, we have, say, the top 10% (of wealthy people) get taxed higher, and that money goes to the programs for the bottom 10% (of poor people). Obviously there would be a tremendous amount of flaws, for instance, people not declaring their true income, unfairness toward the percentages that are just shy of the cutoff, unequal economic opportunity (note: OPPORTUNITY is different from equality...like when a person goes to college only to find themselves unemployed, or some kind of crisis occurs, or they're flat out sol, the opportunity was not fair), and so on. BUT THEN AGAIN, all those problems already exist. I agree that Rand definitely does come off as a sociopath to have such a lack of empathy, but then again, to take the money people earned and distribute it amongst the poor isn't really as "fair" as Rawl makes it seem. And unfortunately, many people are too greedy to give up/donate excess money on their own. So then what is the solution and how do we find a middle ground that's actually productive??? Maybe we can't...but I always come back to Thoreau and Walden. None of these problems would exist if community didn't really exist either. Maybe we're not meant to be social creatures...but if that were the case, we probably wouldn't feel the things we do.
Reply
Bella Rodriguez
2/24/2016 03:15:54 pm
I think that Rand's point of view, though in most ways too extreme and unrealistic, is more favorable than Rawl's viewpoint. I believe that it is completely normal--and frankly, really good--to be selfish a lot of the time. When it comes to money it shows that many people are, in fact, selfish and would rather take what they have than give it to people below them. In a society of people who work hard for their money, its human nature to want to protect it for themselves. However, Rand does not account for the fact that humans are empathetic creatures who are not selfish beings at nature. To a certain extent selfishness is beneficial, but Rand took it above and beyond to make greed the main argument. Rawls, however, is simply too giving, and spreading money across the board seems like a communistic approach that can--for lack of better vocabulary--screw everyone over in the long run.
Reply
Kristen Wimmer
2/24/2016 08:27:03 pm
I neither wholeheartedly agree or disagree with Rand or Rawl. However, I do prefer Rawl's ideas. While his ideas are socialist, and in generally I'm not a huge a promotor of such a economic system, it demonstrates its potential in countries such as Sweden. Not only is Sweden the birthplace of transnational corporations like Nokia and Kodak, but according to Forbes study, its people are among the happiest int he entire world, which as a whole I think determines a successful society. However, looking at a country like our own, theres obviously many more globally dominating corporations created here. The question is, do we owe that to capitalism? Is it solely this system that catalyzes the creativity and innovation required to run these corporations? What I like about Rawl's philosophy is the point he makes about that top 1%, the people who have more money than they could even imagine how to spend. And the reality is that exactly, once you reach a certain point affluence, no one needs THAT much money. Although everyone is entitled to enjoy the wealth they work for, it has to be acknowledged the wealth distribution is critically uneven. As for Rand's philosophy, I first want to note that her ideas are quite controversial for a 1950s Soviet Union, illicit even. So, props to her for that. However, I think if we only worked for ourselves all he time, we could not never solve global crises. While humans are generally a selfish species, we also aren't meant to be by ourselves. Therefore, lots of strife could emerge out of only striving towards our own interests and by not asking others for help, or wanting to help other people, we couldn't even solve those issues that would arise. I do think in some cases we have to remember to put ourselves before others, such as when choosing a college. Pick a school that you like, not your parents' favorite solely because its your parents' favorite.
Reply
Cody Zimmerman
2/25/2016 04:25:45 am
While I can not find myself to agreeing directly with either side, one of them definitely seams more appealing and that would be the argument of John Rawls. Rand and her argument seem to be leading to capitalism, which is a large part of the society in which I live. Being that I have never experienced what it feels like to live in an "ideal society," a connection can not be made to John Rawls although what he says is more appealing. Why capitalism has developed such a negative connotation is because of the natural separation of classes, like syrup and water in the same container. One side benefits while the other is forced to watch, which doesn't exactly seem fair. In the end, Rawls's idea of "justice" has not been proven worthy of implementation, at least not yet. I'm conflicted, Mr. Biggs.
Reply
Timothy Mills
2/25/2016 04:56:56 am
I don't really agree with either Rawl or Rand in this situation. if anything I think they both go to an extreme viewpoint on what a just society is. I don't agree with Rawl's veil of ignorance because it's almost impossible to not take my experiences and interests into account when making something like a just society. He wants people to make a blueprint without taking their own experience into account, but I can't do that. Whether it;s consciously or subconsciously, my personal experience will almost always be a factor, but I can understand his desire for a completely unbiased viewpoint. I disagree with Rand's self-interest even more than with Rawl's viewpoint. Rand says it's immoral to help others or to receive help, but that's completely untrue. Not excepting help isn't moral, it's just being to stubborn to admit that you need help. Looking out for one's own interests is important, but that doesn't mean you have to disregard everyone else to secure your own interests. We live in a world that requires cooperation between people, being selfish won't help anything.
Reply
Shea Cody
2/25/2016 07:26:59 am
I agree with points from both videoes. I believe that a system where it is possible to have billionaires continue to make money while others are simultaneously struggling to make enough money to feed and clothe themselves is a flawed system. However, in the second video it mentioned how Ayn Rand believed that people should not expect help from others. I think this a valuable lesson that can make society stronger as a whole because no one can expect hand outs from others. Both philosophies have strong point that I think if applied together would be effective in practice.
Reply
I really don't support any of the sides. There really should be a hunt for the middle ground. I mean, the redistribution of wealth sounds nice, but what about the people who do nothing or bust there *** off trying to make something. But then on the opposite end, if one person has swindled his way to power, how will the poor get money or even be able to succeed in life? I feel that Ayn Rand and John Rawls both are saying one part of a system that could be good if thought about. I really don't know what it is though. A good middle-ground start would be a system that redistributes wealth and yet allows people who work hard succeed. I have no clue what would be a good system and I realistically feel both sides are flawwed
Reply
Biggs
3/20/2016 11:22:20 am
I think you've really hit the core contradiction here. It's a very complex balance we need to find to have a system that provides equal opportunity without overpowering the wealthy or penalizing success. Arguably, our politicians have have done us a disservice by making it such a black and white debate. Certainly Rand and Rawls didn't help either.
Reply
Joe Dark
2/25/2016 07:53:59 am
To me I am on the middle ground of both. They both have some good ideas and bad ideas. I dislike the idea of Ayn that it should be all about the self and one has a duty to be selfish.If it was a duty to focus on your self and not the society around you it would create a very unstable society. Everyone would trust no one. There would probably be no teams at all. There would only exist self interest and moving the self forward rather then society. I also dislike Rawls idea for people opting for a fairer society from behind the veil of iggnorance. I feel like with extensive freedom and (super) fair/equal oppretunity, people would try to get them selves special rights and powers and in turn tip the balance of power. People would see them selves as lessers then equals to try to get ahead of other people in there society. I would honestly try to find a middle ground on the "political wing" ground. i feel like if you go to far, your ideas start to become broken and undesirable.
Reply
Julia Nijnens
2/25/2016 10:34:29 am
I have mixed emotions towards both ideas. I don't agree necessarily with them , however I don't disagree with all of their points. Both, Rawl and Rand, have extreme viewpoints but within those points good arguments are made. For example, Ayn Rand's idea of not having expectations for others is a good argument but contradicts the world we live in because we need to expect that we can work well together. We should not rely on handouts from others to go through life, but we should rely on others to help us out so we can get through life. An argument from the other side would be the "unbiased" viewpoint. The idea, if developed further and incorporated with Rand's view points, could be good, but in a sense it is brainwashing. It related to brainwashing because it is basically stating don't consider your life experience and go into everything blank. It basically states erase your mind when thinking about a new situation. It isn't the "open-mind" approach in my eyes, it is a "brainwashing" approach. Overall, both ideas are too extreme to ever become functioning but they both make solid points.
Reply
logan applegate
2/25/2016 11:14:15 am
I do not fully agree with either side but I do classify myself as a right wing person. I agree with Rand's self interest because people will do what is in there best interest. i do not believe that one class should have to pay higher rates than others. the top 10% already pay over 50% of all federal taxes. i do not agree with rawl's idea of no one drooping below the poverty line because this will create shirkers. why would anyone work as hard as someone else if they know they wont fall below that line? there is no incentive for people to compete and put in labor
Reply
Biggs
3/20/2016 11:19:20 am
It's definitely true that people operate in their self-interest, though that can sometimes be hard to define - Rand doesn't take into account situations where one's best interest is hard to define. Like, is it better for me to have strong government surveillance to protect me and my family from terrorist violence, or is it worse for me because that same government surveillance could be turned against law-abiding citizens, as it is in every dystopian story ever.
Reply
JERRYRYYRYRY t.
2/25/2016 11:24:18 am
After watching both of the videos I find myself agreeing with most of Rawls thoughts. When Rawl's talks about how many people will change the way they think society should be If they were not happy with what they have. I do see some people change their views now when they are faced with a situation like yesterday in one of my classes I heard this person talk about someone for wearing something inappropriate but on other days I also hear them disagree about some dress codes...that might be a bad example but it just shows how some people will change their views in order to be happy. I know I would set some rules if I wasn't happy!!!!1 like if someone has some food I know I'm going to ask them to SHARE but if I have some food you know I'm not sharing ......just an example of how we change our views :)
Reply
Nicole Ortiz
2/25/2016 11:25:59 am
I think that both sides are flawed. Rawl says the bettering of society as a whole is a better way for the world. Rand says that the bettering of individuals is key to a better world. One of Rawl's flaws is that he ignores that society is made up of individuals that differ significantly from each other. One of Rand's flaws is that you need to focusing on the betterment of yourself but really on in reason, not emotion (compassion).
Reply
Steven Ansell
2/25/2016 03:27:04 pm
Although Rawl's notion on "The Veil of Ignorance" is an interesting concept, I tend to lean more towards Rand's ideas of self-reliance in its roots. I definitely wouldn't go so far as to say that asking for help is immoral, (as expressed by Rand) but I am a firm believer in putting your own interests first, THEN considering others. The distinction between my point and Rand's is that it seems as though Rand doesn't consider others at all, which is the reason I don't completely agree with her. It is tough to comment on this topic without any prejudice, but I just think it is more logical to have the right to control any amount of money you earn - large or small - on your own, without others on the short-termed mind. After all, it is your own hard-earned money.
Reply
Griffin Leslie
2/25/2016 04:45:00 pm
While i don't fully agree with either John Rawl or Ayn Rand's viewpoints on how our society should be structured economically, I believe that i lean slightly towards Rawl's argument. On one hand Rawl's suggestion of the "veil of ignorance" is quite far fetched in my opinion. It isn't realistic because people will always take their experiences into account because it's simply human nature. We will constantly look to fulfill our own self interests in an attempt to survive what can be a brutal society. I think we have adapted a very "survival of the fittest" mentality as a result of the social and economic classes becoming so unbalanced. Taking that into consideration i do agree with Rawl's suggestion of a fair society where the people are given more freedom and opportunity is distributed equally. On the other hand i believe that Rand's objective views pushing people to remain selfish and only work towards their own interests is ridiculous. The current society we live in is far too similar to this concept already. It is perfectly alright for one to work hard and pursue a successful career where they can achieve happiness in their life. I only find it immoral when people become selfish and end up keeping others from achieving that same happiness in their own life. Everyone deserves the equal opportunity to get a job, raise a family, and live a comfortable life. I understand this kind a prosperity should never be simply handed to someone but it is all about giving them the chance to reach that state. In Ayn Rand's philosophy, people who sacrifice a lot from their own lives to help others such as firemen, policemen, paramedics, and military servicemen and women are shown to be weak solely because they act selflessly. These people may not always be furthering themselves in their lives, but they do a service for the good of others. In no way could this ever possibly be immoral as Ayn Rand claims it would be. If life is truly the pursuit of happiness, as i believe it to be, such people are doing nothing more than helping others remain happy and possibly helping themselves mentally in the process.
Reply
Dannielle Wolf
2/25/2016 06:14:17 pm
I would say that both sides are moving to an extreme to solve a difficult and delicate problem. While I agree with Rand that self-preservation is very important, and being selfish is not necessarily a bad thing, I completely disagree that asking for help is a bad thing. There isn't anything wrong with asking for a hand when one falls down. Her idea that each person pursues their own happiness is a positive idea at its roots, but then adding that one cannot ask for help because each person should be completely devoted to their own future is absurd to me. Humans can form friendships and relationships with the people around them, and it seems immoral that we should ignore each other's pursuit of happiness simply because we are caught up in our own. On the other hand, Rawls' thought experiment that everyone would want to choose an economically equal system if they had no idea where they would end up makes sense to me. Now people are considering that they might end up homeless, poor, alone, and depressed rather than at the top of the pyramid, so they have to think about what would be best for them and maybe their families and friends. However, this bizarre situation reveals a different idea: that people on top prefer to ignore the people on the bottom, while people on the bottom can only look up for support. While I would say that everyone deserves support, there will be a portion of people who take money and don't use it to improve themselves and just scrape by. Though this idea is disappointing, it is important to remember that many others will use the money to support families, and build themselves up, and do incredible things. So I would have to lean towards Rawls, because every person deserves the opportunity to thrive and prosper, and should not be ignored because a small percentage would do the "wrong thing". A veil of ignorance would offer make sure that everyone could at least get equal opportunity, but it is certainly not perfect. I think that a middle ground is the most fair for everyone involved, however we could go about it.
Reply
Abby Westgate
2/25/2016 07:18:34 pm
How can we encourage people to create an economic system that will be just for the greatest amount of people, regardless of background or identity? Rawl believes the answer lies in his philosophy of The Veil of Ignorance—if we ask someone to create a moral or just economic system, he or she will do so if he or she is told that they could be any kind of person in this system. As I watched the video detailing The Veil of Ignorance, I wondered whether this was true morality. If we need to be told that we could be any type of person in order to look out for different types of people, do we truly grasp the concept of caring for other people? It seems as though humans must first worry for themselves in order to understand how to worry for others. If I imagine myself as potentially being any type of person, I am looking out for my hypothetical self. Both John Rawl and Ayn Rand acknowledge that the selfishness of human nature always has an impact on how humans design an economic system, whether they know it or not.
Reply
Adel Soliman
2/25/2016 07:22:03 pm
With Rand's ideals, the world will never progress, for when a discovery is made that can benefit the human race, one will harness the power all for themselves to improve their state while the rest of the world could be evolving. People are very very limited when they see themselves as only an individual in every aspect of life. Sometimes individualizing yourself from the rest of the world can help and is the best way to go, but to neglect help or helping in every aspect will only hold down yourself and humanity as a whole.
Reply
Biggs
3/20/2016 11:12:31 am
Your interpretation of Rawls is spot-on. The question is, how to properly distribute the wealth to provide equal opportunity? Many people will question the government based redistribution advocated (vaguely) by Rawls is inefficient or unjust, and propose private charity as the proper way to do it (this is a huge part of the liberal vs. conservative debate as I'm sure you remember). Liberals and conservatives would agree that equality of opportunity is key, but disagree on how to get there. How do we actually accomplish a "level playing field"?
Reply
Jessica Auriemma
2/25/2016 07:57:54 pm
After watching the videos, I see flaws in both however I tend to agree more with Rawl’s left-wing philosophy. His idea of the “veil of ignorance” makes sense and I feel it would undoubtedly result in a more fair and balanced society. On the other hand, this idea is not plausible at all. There is no way that humans could utterly disregard where they stand in life in order to build a new, fair society. There is no way you could tell a filthy rich white person "Okay, but imagine if you were black and living in extreme poverty. Have you considered what they would want?" Obviously these two people would want different things and there is no way the person with the upper hand would say "That's true. Perhaps we should redistribute some of the wealth." Naturally they would want to keep whatever they own and would say "It would suck to be that person but at the end of the day, I am not a poor black person, I am a rich white person." Therefore, in this way I agree with Rand that to act rationally is to put oneself first. This is probably the only point I agree with from her argument. She suggests living a life in which you help no one but yourself. This idea is even more absurd to be than Rawl’s veil of ignorance. She displays a total disregard for human emotion, sympathy and interaction. It is impossible to live a life in which one helps no one but oneself and if such a life were lived, I firmly believe society would be even worse off than it is today. The world would be full of greedy people in a constant competition to beat one another down so that they could end up on top. I don’t necessarily think either philosophy is right or even possible to execute but I feel Rawl is at least headed in the right direction by saying we should consider everyone when building a society as opposed to Rand who essentially says to secure your own happiness and screw everyone else.
Reply
Pat Monaghan
2/25/2016 08:00:59 pm
I think it’s difficult to staple myself to one side of the argument. I see major flaws in both. I was both confused and intrigued by the monopoly board as imagery for Rawls philosophy because it seems to me an argument for both. I’ve always questioned the need for the board game LIFE because to me Monopoly pretty much covers all the bases. It’s a long game fueled by self interest in which a player experiences all the board has to offer. What both arguments forget to take into consideration is that people play Monopoly. Behind every top hat, racecar, and wheelbarrow is a person. With blood. And a brain. And a horrible seventh grade. So of course they will be different. Because people are different. Veil or no veil. You can see that just by looking at the board. But the one thing everyone who plays has in common is that they want to win. In a way I agree with Rawl because when playing its important to be aware of all sides of the board. But in another way I agree with Rand because the only reason it’s important is because it helps you to win. The biggest thing I think that makes me lean more towards Rawl’s side of the argument is Rand’s complete disregard for emotion in society. She says people live by reason, and emotion should have nothing to do with it. In my opinion, emotion creates reason. Lets just say Iron and Thimble have been playing Monopoly for a while now and it comes to a point where Iron asks Thimble for some property that would surely help him flourish on his side of the board. Thimble and Iron are good friends. It’s been a good game. Thimble is winning and giving Iron this piece of property wont hurt Thimbles chances as far as he can see. However, on New Years Eve of last year Iron drunkenly called Thimble “a major dick” in front of like thirty other pieces including Shaggy Dog and Battleship. For a piece like Thimble, that cut ran deep. In fact, it becomes the deciding factor between Iron having two monopoly’s or settling for a house on Baltic Ave. Although I despise the feeling I get when I’m given something I didn’t work hard enough for, the point I’m trying to make is we cant blame certain pieces for wanting free stuff. Because even though everyone wants to win, if we aren’t given the same game board at the start, there is no game.
Reply
Devon Barnes
2/28/2016 07:45:19 pm
I can't say that I agree fully with either Rawl or Rand. Both their statements definitely are extreme and flawed and some of it just doesn't make sense to me that one can fully believe it but if I really had to choose one to support it would be Rand. Self-reliance is a key element in a person's character and although it is far-fetched to say you shouldn't ask others for help, you should still try to get stuff done on your own. When you do that then the work is always more satisfying and true to what you believe. However that's really the only reason that I can agree with. I am one who believes more in emotion rather than reason, opposing Rand. My gut feeling or my first instinct is what I always go with because I have that confidence and trust in myself that it is the right thing, especially since whenever I think of reasoning something I just start second guessing myself. When you go with your gut there is no second guessing.
Reply
Hannah Wallis
2/29/2016 07:58:16 am
I don't really agree with either Rawl or Rand. I believe both are very extreme in their points, however there are some points that Rand makes that I do agree with. I do consider myself to be more right-wing as opposed to left-wing, so I do agree with Rands self interest to an EXTENT. I don't believe that we should be extremely selfish people and not give anything back, but I do believe that people have the right to do whatever they want with their earnings. The rich shouldn't be obligated to pay higher taxes to even out the system. The rich highest 10% already pay over 50% of federal taxes. Not saying that all these people worked hard for their earnings, but I'm sure a lot of them did. I also think people forget that a lot of the "rich" people in this world are professional athletes and movie stars and not just "white business owners". You can't continuously attack big businesses when there are other people contributing to the problem. I believe that Rawl's idea could essentially make people lazy and create slackers. If no one can fall below a certain line then you lose an incentive to get stuff done. A person who can work and chooses not to should not be grouped with hardworking people. That's honestly unfair. That's like working in a group project and no one does anything and gets either the same grade or only 5 points below the grade of the person who did everything.
Reply
Zoe Kralyevich
2/29/2016 05:14:23 pm
I favor more of Rawl's philosophy, however I'm not completely sold on the idea. I think being liberal-minded means to want change in a way that would benefit everyone and in the end, have everyone equal in every stance. This is what I feel that Rawl is trying to show at the end of the video where he would only allow a rich social class if there was a way that the poor would benefit directly. His "veil of ignorance" also shows how everything is up to chance and if we had a utopian-like society where everyone was equal, then there would be no risk in being born as someone who would be considered a minority today. Although I agree with his theory more, I do think that it is impossible. A world of equality is something that just can't happen, we are in constant competition with eachother to reach this one perfect view of a human being. We are constantly causing issues because of this and disrespecting others and denying them of basic human rights. Although I, as well as many others, would love to have this kind of world, it is impossible.
Reply
Szwede
3/1/2016 05:53:49 am
There are issues that I have with both Rawl and Rand. I'd consider Rawl to be idealistic to a fault. I can be similar in this respect, yet I feel that he fails to pick up on the lack of realism involved with a lot of what he says. The idea of a "veil of ignorance" actually is valuable and can be used to put a lot into perspective, however, it isn't an easy thing to actually apply in life and will likely remain an idea and nothing more. Rand's philosophy is also in a sense flawed, because there are many contradictions present in her argument. Her philosophy fails to take into account how altruism can also be selfish, and how many people can do positive things for others in order to feel better about themselves.
Reply
Biggs
3/20/2016 11:09:22 am
Rand tries to acknowledge that there are seemingly altruistic acts that are actually selfish - she gives examples like people "sacrificing" for friends being not really an altruistic sacrifice but rather a selfish gratification of your selfish love for your friend who makes you happy. Personally, I think this leads to a collapse of the distinction altogether. Egoism vs. Altruism is not a proper framework for thinking about ethics, if only because the two are often indiscernible. So you make a very good point.
Reply
Gabriela Recalde
3/1/2016 05:33:25 pm
I'm going to start off by stating that, from the point we (specifically the US, but still applicable to other parts of the world) are currently at, I see both of these viewpoints as impossible to carry out. That is, unless all history was erased and everything that makes us human was rearranged. Rawls' vision is not possible because of the hostility and selfishness that has been instilled in many of those that hold most of the world's money(power). This couldn't be "fixed" so the whole system and the culture that goes with it would have to be destroyed. Moving on to Rand's vision, while human beings in this economic context are inherently selfish (why Rawls' plan wouldn't work), many of us feel the need to give and sacrifice for the good of the world. There could never be 100% selfishness or selflessness. I identify as an individualist. I often have conflicting political and economic views because I've never been able to take definitive stances. I am constantly battling between giving individuals freedom and giving to society as a whole to, in the long run, help all individuals. I'm a big fan of private charity, but I recognize that many of those who have the resources to help the most, don't. I think this is why I identify as a libertarian politically, almost always fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Once again, though, there are so many contradictions and exceptions when it comes to my political views, so if anyone assumes something about me based on that label I feel pressured to give myself, they will probably be wrong. Just something to keep in mind.
Reply
Biggs
3/20/2016 11:02:05 am
Gabby, I feel exactly the same way. I have the same struggle between what I think of as my libertarian and communitarian sides, and I don't really think those contradictions and exceptions are something to eliminate. They're acknowledgements of the complexity of reality. For example, the question of private charity vs. government redistribution is a really difficult one; there are economists with strong arguments on both sides of that debate (unlike the politicians, who just shout about "evil socialism" or "the evil 1%"). I think that by refusing to think about issues in black-and-white terms, we open up the potential of creative syntheses producing new ideas and approaches. For example, what if we attempted to site a guaranteed minimum income threshold for all American adults below the poverty line, and instead of having private charity being something you donate to a "nonprofit" corporation that usually takes minimum 70% of donations as "overhead," you donate directly to the guaranteed minimum income fund and it goes directly to the poorest people? We could replace the current cradle-to-grave welfare state with an efficient government redistribution program funded by direct-to-person charity rather than high taxes. This restores a need for individual responsibility since people will have to budget that money instead of having the nanny state do it (poorly) for you It also stimulates the economy, because those people will spend the money instantly, creating increased demand. In other words, a fusion of private charity and government redistribution that makes both less corrupt and more efficient. This is the kind of synthesis that I always try to find about when confronted with a black and white opposition of ideas. I guess I'm a Hegelian at the end of the day :)
Reply
Olivia Nooney
3/2/2016 06:55:43 am
I think that Rawl makes the most sense, although both Rawl and Rand are extreme. The thought experiment mentioned: if we didn't know what our opportunities would be in life (race, wealth, gender) then we would support a much more equal society than we have today. I think this is true. It makes sense that we want the best for ourselves (like Rand says). The unjust society we have today is due to the people who are making the decisions ARE the wealthy and those with the best opportunities. I think that I go towards Rawl's left-wing opinion, which isn't surprising. To me, being human is all about helping each other (whether that's human nature or not). Creating a just society where everyone is equal is close to impossible, but with help from Rawl's ideas I think that we can try.
Reply
Biggs
3/20/2016 10:49:25 am
The human nature question is interesting. Rand is definitely arguing we are "naturally" egoistic and only corrupt society teaches this false ideal of helping others (an idea called "altruism", literally other-ism). I don't see how anyone can deny that human nature, as a product of our evolution, includes altruistic instincts, since helping others promotes the survival of more of the species and thus preserves greater genetic diversity and so on. However, I know Rand's response would be that much of what we think is altruistic is actually selfish - for example, she says a mother who sacrificed her life for her child's was being selfish (in Rand's good sense of the word) because the child was her highest value and so she devoted everything to it; in other words, it wasn't a sacrifice for another person at all. So part of her argument is an attempt to redefine how we think about selfishness. Altruism, in this view, is immoral because it means sacrificing things you value more highly in order to please others, which is essentially a form of moral slavery in her eyes. Not saying this argument works or not, just throwing it out there :)
Reply
Natalie Hillier
3/7/2016 06:18:41 pm
After watching these videos, I came to the conclusion that I definitely do not support either of the ideas set by Rawl and Rand completely but there are parts of each philosophy that I agree with. Such as the idea of equal opportunity from Rawl's philosophy but the "what you put it is what you get out" aspect from Rand's philosophy. I agree with Rawl's idea of the veil of ignorance because it is true that we define what we believe is just based on the situations and conditions we live in and the only way to imagine a fair society is to put yourself in the shoes of other people, especially those living in poverty and out of the standards set by society. The flaw with Rawl's philosophy is that you can't completely make everyone want to support those that have less than them (particularly the rich) because the selfish nature of preserving what you have because you've earned it is an ancient instinctive behavior of humans. Besides, not everyone will agree to put themselves in the shoes of others (ESPECIALLY the extremely impoverished) because they want to be blind to the fact that although they can help financially, they don't want to and feel as though they shouldn't have to..just like Rand's ridiculous idea that in order to have a successful life you have to take care of yourself and help no one.
Reply
Ricky Wild
3/8/2016 07:43:20 am
Both philosophers bring up valid points and likewise, both philosophers have some deeply flawed ideologies. After seeing that the video's were between Rawl and Rand, I had a good feeling that the ideas were both extremities of normal concepts; Rawl a extreme version of being Liberal and Rand being an extreme version of being Conservative.
Reply
Jane Breslin
3/9/2016 02:58:17 pm
I remember briefly reading about Ayn Rand's philosophy in the book, "Old School" by Tobias Wolff, where the main character at first agreed with Rand, but later realized that you cannot place human beings under the same conditions as a company. I recently realized that I was left libertarian, which I should have honestly noticed since my mother is one as well, so I do agree from an economic standpoint that in business it is "survival of the fittest," in a sense. This is capitalism that the American economy runs on. Rawl's philosophy does sound good for creating more "fair" laws, but it seems a bit idealistic, as most peoples' choices will be influenced by their class status and how they were raised. How would it possibly be achieved in economics? The redistribution of wealth would not go over well with the middle and upper classes. Although Rawl does bring to light the amount of voice and influence each class has in government, which to the lower class, appears to be very little.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorArchives
April 2016
Categories |