00:00 John Rawls 12:13 Robert Nozick

@Gjaimes586

8 ай бұрын

Nozik’s theory only works in the vacum. Rawl’s works in the real work although imperfectly. That’s the big difference.

Having a relatively neutral third party explain both instead of having an actual debate is a way better way to contrast ideologies

@termsofusepolice

Жыл бұрын

Agree 1000%. But the amygdala-dominant brains of the masses can't abide it. They need to see and hear an aggressive, vitriolic clash of personalities. Because their objective in witnessing the debate is not an increase in knowledge and understanding. Their objective is cheering on their tribe's repudiation of the opposing tribe.

Thank you for uploading this. Very interesting!

I've always wondered if these interviews were partly scripted or rehearsed, or at least heavily edited. The guests always strike me as so well spoken and concise, I almost find it hard to believe that they're all speaking extemporaneously.

@homerfj1100

Жыл бұрын

They're very bright well known academics who have had years of lecturing, writing papers and books.

@vhawk1951kl

Жыл бұрын

Why might they speak " extemporaneously"?

@giarichards1529

Жыл бұрын

Well believe it.

@GenteelCretin

Жыл бұрын

When you spend years with your nose pressed in books of theory you begin to adapt a necessary mental concision that increasingly presents itself in conversation. It's impressive to behold in a focused, discursive context, but your friends will find you to be a pedantic ass at parties.

@maxheadrom3088

Жыл бұрын

I think they talk a bit before the interview - like talk show hosts do with their guests. Magee is also a professor of philosophy and his guests are also professors. When you teach a lot the ability to teach improves.

I'd love for this series to be brought back with Alex O'Connor as the host.

@mutabazimichael8404

24 күн бұрын

That would be , AMAZING

Nozick might’ve been under appreciated by his peers. But LD debaters sure do love him.

Please upload more video, i have been searching the video that you upload about professor from University of Warwick if i correct, discussing about Epistemology "How can we know that we don't know" please i really need the rest of the video about interview like this. Thanks!

@vhawk1951kl

Жыл бұрын

"We" cannot know, any more than we" can have a headache- fortunately there neither is nor can be such a thing as collective knowledge, for if there were, the headache of the one would be the headachy of all- and it *isn't*. Be vey grateful for that, "we" cannot know, only individuals can know which I define as to directly immediately personally experience, as directly immediately and personally as pain. How else would you define " Know"?

Does anybody know the brand/model of spectacles that Prof. Dworkin is wearing in this video (or similar if not the exact model)?

Great clear discussion, I’d never heard of Ronald Dworkin but clearly a very precise mind

@rakasin

Жыл бұрын

Dworkin is wonderful, well worth reading 😉

10:59 Does anyone know who actually held such a view?

@josephmaynordevelopmentwor23

3 жыл бұрын

Not sure but it sounds like an extreme view: a radically progressive view.

@Philosophy_Overdose

3 жыл бұрын

@Khuno Yeah, that’s what I would’ve thought too, but it doesn’t really seem to fit with what else was said. Magee himself says that it is a position that is held by some serious people, which Dworkin affirms, and even seems to have particular people in mind.

@fmagarik

2 жыл бұрын

Socialists, but they would never admit it

@rickyhuang6874

2 жыл бұрын

Pretty sure Mao held this view and actually put it in practice, in which they took wealth away from all landlords in China and redistributed.

@TheEdudo

2 жыл бұрын

a few years ago a chilean politician Camila Vallejos from the communist party answered a question about it, she pretty much said so. kzread.info/dash/bejne/m5mnytWKesS2d5M.html

I suppose the reason one doesn't hear of Nozick in popular discourse is that if you want to come to his conclusions, you can skip all the elaborate intellectual arguments and cite Ayn Rand.

@Oners82

2 жыл бұрын

The only problem is if you cite Ayn Rand everybody knows you are an imbecile...

@bart-v

2 жыл бұрын

@@Oners82 Now that is a very convincing "intellectual argument"!

@sybo59

Жыл бұрын

Rand was a far superior philosopher. Nozick was highly capable of clear thinking, but he embarrassingly failed to even restate Rand’s theory of ethics when he took on the topic.

@bernardliu8526

Жыл бұрын

Rand is negligible.

@sybo59

Жыл бұрын

@@bernardliu8526 Not if you understand her massive contributions to epistemology and ethics.

Dworkin, what a charming guy.

This was excellent. He elucidated on Rawls and Nozick succinctly.

@charlytaylor1748

10 ай бұрын

very well done, I thought. Made me re-appraise my Nozick, though I still lean towards a minimal state, just don't trust that pesky gubmint

That was pretty good🙂

The erroneous stance of Nozick is that he believes in the divine right of property. His definition of "voluntary" is completely false and erroneous.

Bill Hicks has kept himself in shape

18:28 "well, this seems to be based"

@vhawk1951kl

Жыл бұрын

The " well" in""well, this seems to be based",(sic) performs what exact function? Decoration?

I like the characterization of wealth redistribution as “taking from the middle class to give to the lower classes”, as if the idea of redistributing wealth from the top 1% is just out of the question.

@MrJustSomeGuy87

2 жыл бұрын

He was using that as an example precisely because it is NOT the standard example of redistribution. He’s demonstrating the radical nature of rawls’ principle that any change (ANY change) should benefit the least well off. Not benefit the greatest number, not benefit the overall opportunities…but the least we’ll off solely. So even if you fuck over the middle class and it helps the worst off…that is just. The fact that you found it counterintuitive should have supported that it’s a good example

@TheCommonS3Nse

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrJustSomeGuy87 That is completely ignoring the premise of the original position from which it stems. Rawls’ “original position” was the position that a rational person would take if they did not know what situation they would be born into. He said that given that original position, you would have to conclude that any policy should benefit the least well off. Not that it would benefit ONLY the least well off. Why not just go all out and argue that grinding up the wealthiest people each year and feeding them to the poor would benefit the least well off, so therefore Rawls would support that. That’s a ridiculous example, but it illustrates the point. Would a rational person choose that for society if they didn’t know the circumstances of their birth? No, obviously not. And no rational person would agree in their original position that the middle class be fucked over to help the poor, as you are very likely to be born into the middle class. The same cannot be said for the rich as a modest redistribution drawn from their wealth is not going to push them into poverty, as it may for the middle class. Therefore more people would support redistribution from the rich as that is a risk they would be willing to take if it ensured that they can still manage should they be born into poverty.

@Delicoms

Жыл бұрын

@@TheCommonS3Nse your response doesn't make sense. As to the obviously wrong "if grinding rich would benefit", for Rawls that's a non starter because it violates principle 1, basic rights The second principle doesn't necessitate that the middle class will be made poor. Clearly if they were, poorer than the poorest, they would then become the most worst off, and then justice would center around them. The comment above is accurate about why they choose middle class for sake of argument - it's to distinguish from mere utilitarianism, which Rawls is distinctly arguing against, for a comprehensive alternative.

@TheCommonS3Nse

Жыл бұрын

@@Delicoms I made no claim that redistribution from the middle class would make them poor, only that it would have a material impact on their lives that it would not have for the rich. Back to the original position, if I was choosing a system that I would be born into, I would not choose one where the burden of supporting the poor falls on the middle class and not the rich. I think that's a fairly universal principle given that most developed countries have a progressive income tax and not a regressive income tax or a flat tax. It would be inaccurate to describe a progressive tax structure as "redistribution from the middle class to the poor", as most of the redistribution would be coming from the wealthy. Describing it that way doesn't offer any "distinction" from utilitarianism. It just creates a straw man that is easier to argue against. It's a scare tactic to convince people that anything that helps the poor must necessarily have a negative impact on the middle class, when that is clearly not the case.

@vhawk1951kl

Жыл бұрын

Why redistribute wealth *at_all*? those that wish to are in the land of religion or norms or morals or ethics or some religious mumbo jumbo of that sort-broadly wishing that facts were not facts, which is largely the purview of religion. and the religion modernism in particular has as one of its tenets that "equality" is desirable but quite why, who knows? No more is it apparent how this famous "equality" is defined

If you have a right to the concern of others you must first make them your slaves.

"Competing rights" is the key here. This is what's missing in the rationale of libertarians.

@BuJammy

Жыл бұрын

"Men fight not for freedom, but against the freedom of others" and all that

@vhawk1951kl

Жыл бұрын

Only problem with rights or a " right" is that none can define either without resort to cognates or synonyms, descriptions and circularity or just psychological algebra such as X=Y =X where neither X nor Y is defined or ascribed a value. probable reason for that is that rights/ a right is a blaub simply*cannot* be defined clarified or focused because the idea was *never clear, right/rights is a word for something but it is impossible to say for what, or to use a photograph of something but it is so unfocused that it is simply impossible to determine of what it is a photograph. I defy anyone to define a right or rights*without* reference to cognates and synonyms, descriptions and circularity, and even my own definition probably falls into one of those traps A right is... none can say, or so I suppose but we shall see.

@fede2

Жыл бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl It's a theoretical construct designed to safguard one's freedom. I'm not seeing the problem.

@vhawk1951kl

Жыл бұрын

@@fede2 That being a description of what?Set out clearly exactly what you are describing?

@fede2

Жыл бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl It doesn't have to be descriptive in nature of anything in order to be meaningful.

The opening premise of amnesiacs is hard to imagine. How could you not know your own viewpoints, and orientations? "Far fetched."

@someonenotnoone

2 ай бұрын

It's not saying you could literally not know them. It's saying imagine it. This is good exercise for your imagination and it looks like you could use it.

He’s blatantly misrepresenting Rawls’ argument to be that people DO choose to structure their societies based on the original position. Rawls’ argument, as I understand it, is that the most just society WOULD be based on the original position, not that our current society is structured that way.

Rawls' original position was far ahead of its time. Called 'ridiculous' at the time and probably still seen as far-fetched to some today. However, I think we know enough about biology and psychology to say, that the original position is in fact the position we are in at birth: we can't choose our genes, socio-economic class, culture, parents and their values, skin colour, and the list goes on.

@kaimarmalade9660

2 жыл бұрын

Rawls' ethics are going to be influential to millennials that got shafted by student loans and things me thinks.

@jeanmackenzie9821

Жыл бұрын

My B in

@kaimarmalade9660

Жыл бұрын

@@garrett9945 Killer comment. Not being sarcastic.

@battyjr

Жыл бұрын

G. A. Cohen has some interesting critiques of Rawls's "difference principal." On youtube! There's a lecture from 2001. RIP G.A.!

@sybo59

Жыл бұрын

None of that says anything of how we should act - it offers no ethical insight.

Rawls is the most important intellectual for our times. The number one academic for the 21st century.

@not_emerald

Жыл бұрын

Jesus christ

@ekekonoise

Жыл бұрын

For freeloaders of course!

Wer ist hier wegen BWET

❤

And equality of opportunity? He forgot the principle 2a in Rawls. Bad Dworkin! Bad!

Even (American) Republicans would have the world believe that they support the restriction that any inequality benefit the worst-off in society. The manifestations of this belief of theirs are in several forms, such as ‘Trickle Down Economics’ and the ‘Laffer Curve’.

@osasereharold-erhabor5405

Жыл бұрын

Their is no such thing as trickle down economics

Bro musta just got back from the dentist bc his lip looks numb af. That thing is just flapping around

Note to self: Stop staring at Rawls' weirdly twisting lower lip while he talks! Edit: THE PERSON IS NOT RAWLS.

@dann6067

2 жыл бұрын

That's not Rawls dear indian viewer, that's Ronald Dworkin. Rawls has been dead for quite some time now.

@Xcalator35

2 жыл бұрын

@@dann6067 Well, on the other hand this interview is from the late 70s!! Rawls was alive at that time...

@shubhrasingh5154

2 жыл бұрын

@@dann6067 thanks... Though I must say that both have a remarkable semblance... I had seen Rawls's picture on the Google and that too of when he was older ... So maybe that's why I assumed it might have been him..Thanks for the correction anyways👍

@TheCommonS3Nse

2 жыл бұрын

Mistaken identity and all, I agree. That lip is very distracting! I hope someone checked on him after the show to make sure he wasn’t having a stroke.

@annehebert510

Жыл бұрын

Surely the big 70s glasses are more distracting?

Interesting mouth and glasses.

Nozick is correct, but his views will always be unpopular bc they reject the biases of the masses.

@charleslajoie4977

2 жыл бұрын

In other words, they don't bow down to slave morality.

@supereero9

Жыл бұрын

Says the guy who's a complete slave to the market ideology and the ideology of "property"

@not_emerald

Жыл бұрын

Anyone who takes just the arguments both the men make would stay on Nozick's side. I'm actually surprised that many people are simping for Rawls in the comments. You don't even have to be a libertarian to notics that Nozick just tore apart many of Rawls' propositions

@jcavs9847

Жыл бұрын

You, of course, are the enlightened "unbiased" one

@gabyprxx

Жыл бұрын

this just depends on your values

Nozick's view has got to be one of the most immoral I have ever heard.

@damiangriffiths7801

2 жыл бұрын

Nozick's reputation rests on his arguments. They should be looked at dispassionately, as Dworkin does, and taken on their merits. Not rejected as "immoral". This kind of unreasoned dismissal is what people mean by "cancel culture". Saying things like this hands such a powerful weapon to the champions of "liberty" who don't want to pay any tax

@Oners82

2 жыл бұрын

@@damiangriffiths7801 That is just a silly response. First, my repudiation is based upon a careful analysis of his theory and its effects on society. To call it unreasoned just because I didn't write a thesis on KZread, rather than just asking me for my reasoning is both incorrect and a straw man. Second, this has got absolutely NOTHING to do with cancel culture. If you think it does then you don't even know what cancel culture is. How did I try to "cancel" him? Oh that's right, I didn't, I simply offered my opinion as to the moral status of his theory. Offering an opinion on an open platform is called free speech, not cancel culture. Third, my reasoning WAS dispassionate. Just because I came to the conclusion that his theory, if implemented, would have a devastating on society and is therefore highly immoral, that does not mean my analysis was emotionally driven. All in all, I find absolutely zero merit in your response. It is just straw man after straw man.

@damiangriffiths7801

2 жыл бұрын

@@Oners82 Ok. Well it isn't clear to me that saying something is an immoral theory is the same thing as saying that if it was implemented it would have bad consequences. You must think utilitarianism is an immoral theory then? And every shade of communism is an immoral theory? Are people who hold immoral theories immoral people?

@Oners82

2 жыл бұрын

@@damiangriffiths7801 Utilitarianism minimises suffering for the most amount of people. It is far from perfect but libertarianism would bring suffering to far more people. Therefore libertarianism is worse. "And every shade of communism is an immoral theory?" Why? Show me one communist country that has ever existed. There are none, but if you are talking about the Soviet Unio and places like that that were never actually communist then OF COURSE they were immoral, duh... "Are people who hold immoral theories immoral people?" Not necessarily - only if they perform harmful actions based upon their immoral beliefs.

@termsofusepolice

Жыл бұрын

@@damiangriffiths7801 Your position might hold some water if not for the fact that Nozick claimed it was immoral for any state to force any individual to do anything against their own will. So Nozick himself was not operating in the "dispassionate" category according to your definition.

What a word salad

Bottom line: Nozick is right!

@someonenotnoone

2 ай бұрын

Nah. People are not property.

@WINGS-0F-FREEDOM

2 ай бұрын

@@someonenotnoone people are their own property.

@someonenotnoone

2 ай бұрын

@@WINGS-0F-FREEDOM People are not property.

@WINGS-0F-FREEDOM

2 ай бұрын

@@someonenotnoone you are your own property.

@someonenotnoone

2 ай бұрын

@@WINGS-0F-FREEDOM People are not property.

they need to be silenced.

@dougbamford

2 жыл бұрын

Pretty sinister comment - who is 'they' here? People talking about ideas!?!

@jarrodyuki7081

2 жыл бұрын

@@dougbamford nope philosophy needs tight control.

@dougbamford

2 жыл бұрын

​@@jarrodyuki7081 what do you think philosophy is? How exactly can you 'control' it?

@rodrigosilveira2525

2 жыл бұрын

@@dougbamford Don't feed the troll, dude

@islamtoghuj

2 жыл бұрын

@@dougbamford by bringing the mighty Chinese Communist Party.

The arrogance of academia knows no bounds. Look at the homeless and destitute in Rawls’ world after decades of his theories being studied. The proof is out and the book is quaint not practical.

@gonx9906

Жыл бұрын

what?????

@someonenotnoone

2 ай бұрын

Finders Keepers is so great, just look at all the oil Saudi Arabia gets!