Tag: John Rawls

Posted on

Liberalism and the Legacy of John Rawls

Fresno Bee, February 21, 2021

Republicans, Democrats can find common ground over concern for reason and truth.

Feb. 21, 2021 is the 100th birthday of the American political philosopher John Rawls. He was a famous proponent of liberalism. He imagined a tolerant secular society in which reason produced consensus.

Rawls died in 2002. Liberalism was a common ideal in the United States in the 20th century. Things have unraveled since then into fundamental disagreements about truth, justice and the American way.

Liberty matters in Rawls’ vision. But society also ought to concern itself with the well-being of the underprivileged. Liberalism allows people to pursue their own interests, while also setting up a safety net. This system encourages people to develop their dreams. But it also takes care of what Rawls calls “the least advantaged.”

Rawls gives us a useful tool called “the veil of ignorance.” You ought to pretend, Rawls suggests, that you do not know who you are. You should disregard your race, gender, and net worth. What kind of social system would you imagine was fair, if you didn’t know whether you were rich or poor, white or black, male or female?

This thought experiment encourages us to ignore biased self-interest. This should lead us to see the injustice of sexist, racist and elitist systems. Reasonable and unbiased people should want a system that helps those with special needs and hard luck, because that could be you (or someone you love).

This ends up looking something like the economic and political structure we have in the United States. Entrepreneurs are free to get rich here. But they pay taxes that help the needy. There are details to be debated, including how much the rich should be taxed and how much social support is needed by the poor. Those details are to be sorted out by balancing liberty with concern for the least advantaged.

We can use Rawls’ method to think about a variety of issues. Imagine if you did not know if you were old or young, rich or poor, sick or healthy. You might then agree that those who are most likely to die from COVID-19 (old people and people with medical conditions) should get the vaccine first. Or imagine that you don’t know for the moment whether you are safely housed or not. You might then agree that everyone should have access to shelter, toilets and the security of walls and doors.

And so on.

The liberal idea has been criticized. Libertarians think liberty trumps other values. Socialists want more equality than Rawls provides. Feminists claim Rawls ignores the historical oppression of women. Critics focused on race say he ignores the history of slavery and segregation. And Christian critics claim that secular justice is empty in comparison with the command to love God and your neighbor as yourself.

But liberalism imagines a big tent. Rawls defended a vision of toleration that would allow diverse people to find common ground despite their differences. He called this “overlapping consensus.” That place of reasonable consensus would be where we would debate the historical details and balance equality with liberty.

Overlapping consensus depends upon the basic good will, fairness, and reasonableness of people. Diverse religious people should be able to find consensus because of their basic sense of fairness. Republicans and Democrats should be able to find common ground because they share a common concern for reason and the truth.

As polarization and distrust grow, this idea seems untenable. Conspiracy theories, fake news, identity politics, and growing authoritarianism all serve to undermine the dream of a tolerant, reasonable consensus.

The risk of devolution stems from growing irrationality. Rawls explained in a comment on Hobbes that “so far as people are rational, they will want to avoid having things collapse back into a state of nature.” The state of nature, on this account, is a state of war. Rawls did not mean this as a prophecy. But the risk is there. If people are not rational, we won’t be able to find common ground and society risks collapse.

As we continue to struggle with polarization, we would do well to revisit the liberal idea of a just and tolerant secular society. Rawls gives us reason to hope that we might ignore our differences long enough to find common ground.

Posted on

Democracy and Faith in Humanity

Without faith in humanity, cynicism grows and democracy becomes mob-rule

Fresno Bee, June 4, 2016

  • Faith in democracy is faith in morality and human freedom
  • American philosophers worry about cynicism
  • Irrationality, rudeness, vulgarity undermine democracy

We seem to have lost faith in our democracy. A recent Associated Press Poll indicates that 70 percent of Americans are “frustrated with the 2016 presidential election.” Only “10 percent say they have a great deal of confidence in the political system overall.”

Most Americans say that the country’s morality is getting worse. According to a recent Gallup Poll, nearly 75 percent of us think we are heading in the wrong moral direction. Almost half of Americans rate our morality as “poor.”

The San Jose Mercury News printed a tongue-in-cheek article about moving to Canada, for those who are not happy with this year’s election. If we are not careful, our cynicism will undermine our democracy. A healthy democracy depends upon trust. It requires faith in human decency and a commitment to the common good.

In 1939, as Europe was exploding, American philosopher John Dewey said that democracy rests upon “faith in the possibilities of human nature” and “faith in the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgment and action.”

Democratic faith is a central idea for John Dewey, one of America’s most important political philosophers. In 1939, as Europe was exploding, Dewey explained that democracy rests upon “faith in the possibilities of human nature” and “faith in the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgment and action.”

Without faith in humanity, cynicism grows and democracy becomes mob rule. Another great American philosopher, John Rawls, explained, “Distrust and resentment corrode the ties of civility, and suspicion and hostility tempt men to act in ways they would otherwise avoid.”

When we don’t trust each other, cooperation becomes impossible. Instead of working for the common good, we work to maximize our own self-interest. Instead of pursuing our hopes, we are motivated by our fears.

Faith in rationality is a key tenet of the democratic faith. Democratic citizens respect each other as rational beings. We give reasons and support them with rational arguments. We expect others to respond in kind. We express our disagreements with civility and restraint, believing that our civility will be reciprocated.

In a healthy democracy, we seek to understand each other. We aim to reach consensus. We listen as much as we talk. We avoid insulting and disrespecting each other. And we believe that each of us is committed to the common good in our own way.

Democratic societies fail when they are plagued by irrationality, rudeness, vulgarity, cruelty and violence. These social maladies cause further distrust and dysfunction, creating a vicious circle of cynicism.

Irrationality breeds mistrust. Instead of deliberating, we connive and cajole. Soon rudeness appears as a strategy and defense mechanism in a world of irrational manipulation. We yell rather than talk. We exchange insults instead of ideas.

The slippery slope of social dysfunction soon leads to vulgarity. In a manipulative power struggle, quick points are scored by playing dirty. Outrageous and obscene remarks soon become normal.

Once vulgarity is on the table, we are one step away from outright cruelty. Vulgar rudeness quickly morphs into nastiness and spite. Soon enough racist, sexist and bigoted comments appear on the scene.

WE HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE GOOD ENOUGH TO SOLVE OUR OWN PROBLEMS.

The step from verbal cruelty to outright violence is lubricated by the irrationality and obscenity that came before. Violent words quickly lead to violent deeds, when we have given up on reason and civility. And soon enough democracy becomes mob rule.

All of this was understood and predicted by Dewey in 1939 as a betrayal of the democratic faith. He explained, “Intolerance, abuse, calling of names because of differences of opinion about religion or politics or business, as well as because of differences of race, color, wealth or degree of culture are treason to the democratic way of life.”

Dewey’s solution is more and better education, aimed at creating civility and rationality. Education for and about democracy is needed to renew our faith in democracy.

Democratic education relies upon moral education. The basics of moral education have been understood since the time of Plato. Plato said we need four main virtues: moderation, courage, justice and wisdom. We certainly need more of each.

But beyond those basic moral virtues, democracy relies upon faith – in human freedom and in our capacity for self-governance. We have to believe that human beings are good enough to solve our own problems. The democratic faith is a commitment to make a world in which intelligent cooperation produces humane outcomes. Without that faith, we might as well move to Canada – or build a bunker and ride out the storm.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article81572897.html#storylink=cpy