laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/09/85)
Tim, you would win your bet now. You would lose your bet in 1860. You cannot cry ``rationalisation'' at everybody who disagrees with you. In 1860 I could find many sincere people who, given that they were Black, would prefer to be Christian slaves than free heathens. If you accept that slavery is part of the natural order of things (something which I do not) and you think that the institution of slavery is just (something which I do not) then it makes sense to believe that, if you were born Black then your choices would be to be a heathen in Africa or a slave in the civilised world. From that perspective, it makes sense for a White to say that ``If I had been born Black, I would like to be one of my slaves''. Whether or not this is true is not the question...though there *were* slaves who professed to be happy to be slaves in the 1860s as well. What is important is to recognise why Rawls's theory is flawed -- everybody does not believe the same thing is ``fair''. To take another example...some legislators institute a welfare program. They reason that, if they were poor, they would rather live in a society where there is government welfare than one where there is none. Some poor libertarians refuse to take any government welfare money. They reason that, wealthy or pooor, it is evil to tax your neighbours and they will not profit from such looting. The positions are not reconciliable unless one faction abandons their notion of what is ``fair'' or the fzactions are allowed to form their own governemnts or states and hold differing policies. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/11/85)
> Tim, > you would win your bet now. You would lose your bet in 1860. You cannot > cry ``rationalisation'' at everybody who disagrees with you. In 1860 I > could find many sincere people who, given that they were Black, would > prefer to be Christian slaves than free heathens. If you accept that > slavery is part of the natural order of things (something which I do not) > and you think that the institution of slavery is just (something which > I do not) then it makes sense to believe that, if you were born Black > then your choices would be to be a heathen in Africa or a slave in > the civilised world. From that perspective, it makes sense for a White > to say that ``If I had been born Black, I would like to be one of my slaves''. > > Laura Creighton > utzoo!laura Come now Laura! Be reasonable! Tell me how many slaves refused to be released from slavery. Then look at how many former slaves went on to fight for the Union forces. Tell me how many whites, seeing the "justice" of slavery volunteered to be slaves themselves. The question is not one of "do whites believe blacks are better off as slaves". The question is "would whites want to be slaves". I think the unequivocal answer is: NO. Equality does not mean "equality for Aryans and other distinguished human beings". Equality means equality for ALL human beings: which means that whites cannot consider the question for blacks but for themselves as whites. They must consider the question as : given that I am a wealthy white slaveowner would I agree to switch positions with one of my black slaves? Do you see the difference here? Between saying "If I were black I can imagine that it is possible that I might prefer slavery to my other alternative of poverty" (a rationalization which only makes sense given that one is already presented very unequal alternatives being black in the first place) OR "As the white person I actually am, would I be willing to trade places with a slave?" I think this an excellent way of cutting through to justice and fairness. "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander!" tim sevener whuxl!orb
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/13/85)
No, Tim, the question is will Rawls's theory of justice work. And I maintain that it will only work in a homogenous society where everybody has the same notion of ``fair''. And, historically, it is clear that people have sincerely had incompatible notions. Are you saying that there is some force which prevents a person from believing that a Black is inferior to a White? I have not seen any evidence that this force exists. Today it is unthinkable to consider Blacks animals - but was it really unthinkable then? And given that sincere people could be *so* wrong about an issue *so* basic as few as 100 years ago -- do you think that we are any better today? You do not have to convince me that slavery was wrong -- but, do you think that you could have convinced the southerners in 1860? If you could have, do you think that you could also have convinced them that they did not have the right to cede out of the union? or that it was not in their interest to maintain trade with nations that the north did not want to trade with? Or could you have gotten the norther leaders to agree to any of these southern grievances? I don't think so. In daily usage we run into disagreements as to what is ``fair''. The other day I was rereading the BLTJ second UNIX issue -- in particular the ``Fair Share'' system of Henry. If you are not running this system you find that, on average, every process gets an equal share of the CPU. Therefore, if Y runs a shell pipeline with 7 processes, and X runs a huge bloated and inefficient C program Y gets 7 times as much CPU as X does. This was considered ``unfair''. Given that X and Y are the only users of the machine, X should get 50% and Y should get 50%. So it was changed. This change will sit well with some people's notion of fairness but not with others. Y is using UNIX in an elegant and efficient way and X is using a horrible inefficient program. It is fairer to give Y more of the CPU, since Y is using it well, to discourage X from writing such inefficient and un-UNYX-tool like programs.. After all, everyone suffers if X's programs take 7 times as long to run, on average, as if he had used a pipeline and we will all benefit if he can be taught to write better code. What is fair? It depends on what your basic notion is -- and until a society can be said to have one notion Rawls' theory of justice will fall short of it aim. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura