Schapiro Ralws ) Ralws el filsofo ms importante del ultimo tercio del siglo xx ii) Sorprendente que haya cobrado

tanta importancia un filsofo que retomara las tradicin del contrato social Esto porque la teora del contrato social ha tenido desde su apogeo en el siglo x ii dos gra es problemas! "# no hay ning$n fundamento en la ley natural que apoye lo que la gente acepta %# &unca hubo 'histricamente) un contrato social# Sabemos desde hace "() a*os de antropologa que nunca hubo un contrato social# +ristteles estaba realmente cerca de acertar cuando trat a los seres humanos como inherentemente polticos# &unca existi una condicin pre poltica# , como saben ustedes ahora- porque hemos estudiado a R &o.ic/- el retorno de la tradicin del contrato social responde a ambas ob0eciones- primero reempla.ando laley natural con alguna ersin de la 1tica /antiana# +s /ant llega a ser el reempla.ante de la ley natural- y por el otro lado traba0a con un contrato hiptetico y no con un contrato real- respondiendo a la pregunta! 234u1 acordara la gente56 y no 234u1 acordara la gente ba0o ciertas condiciones especficas56 7ero ninguna de estas ideas- centrales para &o.ic/- fueron in entadas por &o.ic/# +mbas fueron en cambio in entadas por Ralws# Nozick es uno de los tantos escritores que no hubieran escrito sin la pre ia existencia de Ralws# Este es un hecho interesante# 7orque Ralws no es grande en el sentido en que llamamos grande a 8obbes- 9oc/e- :ill- ;ewey- etc# que lo son en el sentido de que tienen una isin global que funciona en los ms di ersos rdenes del conocimiento# 9oc/e tiene una isin del lengua0e de la epistemologa- de la teologa- de la poltica- una isin de cada cosa- lo mismo los otros filsofos# < =enemos la tendencia a llamar grandes a quienes tienen una isin que funciona en amplios rangos de concocimiento# Ralws no hace esto- 1l no tiene una metafsica- no tiene una teora de la ciencia- no tiene una teora del lengua0e# >l solo escribi bsicamente este libro# Escribi algunos artculos que lle aron a su libro- y luego algunas cosas como consecuencia de ese libro- pero bsicamente su libro es 2=eora de la ?usticia6# El es grande en otro sentido- en el sentido de tener el mayor poder intelectual- la mayor influencia intelectual que todos sus contemporneos# Es en este sentido una figura realmente importante- y lo es tambi1n porque aun si a ud no le gustan sus argumentos- ud tiene que llegar a dominarlos# &o se puede pensar en el campo de la filosofa prctica y poltica sin dominar a Ralws# , ser importante por mucho tiempo# @;E+S AE&=R+9ES Aules son estas ideas5

El tiene esta historia acerca de la posicin original- la cual es una ersin del contrato social hipot1tico# ;e0enme darles a uds la intuicin# - pero quiero adelantarles que esto no es importante para su teora '5) En erdad es una exposicin defectuosa Bporque lo que 1l hace es estructurar una eleccin hipot1tica- y entonces el le da a ud cierta especie de informacin para que ud eli0a cierto resultado# 7or tanto a menos que el resultado sea por s mismo deseable - el hecho de que este experimento mental lle e a este resultado no es interesante# 7ermtanme que les de un e0 antes de entrar en Ralws- el cual es uno que 1l mismo da# 3 Aul es el modo 0usto de cortar una torta5
The answer: "The fair way to cut a cake is the person with the knife gets the last slice." What will they do? They will divide it equally, right? That's how the person with the knife gets the biggest possible slice, right? ight, yeah? !nyone think that's not the fair way to cut a cake intuitively? "kay, well there are two assu#ptions there that are worth bringing to the fore $ust for purpose of what %'# going to say to you about awls in a #inute. "ne is that we think dividing the cake equally is the right, you know, we've devised a syste# where the cakes can get equally divided, right? PERO What if % added other infor#ation like one of the people in the roo# was starving and hadn't eaten for three days, or one was a diabetic? We could add other infor#ation which would #ake you wonder, do you want to get an equal division, right? &o the cake'cutting e(a#ple doesn't show you that equality is a good thing. %t presu#es that you've already decided equality's a good thing and you want to get the person to choose equality, right? Then the other thing it assu#es is that people are going to behave self'interestedly, right? When we give the person the knife and say, ")ivide it however you like. *ou get the last slice," we're assu#ing that she or he will want to get the biggest possible slice. +",+-.&%/, &o i##ediately we've got two assu#ptions built into there, one that equality's a good thing. That's the result we actually do want to get, and secondly that people are going to behave in a self'interested way, right? -! 0"&%+%/, " %1%,!- T%2,2 -! 3%&3! 2&T .+T. ! 4.2 2- 25 )2- 02)!6" )2 T" T! ,ow, awls's original position has the sa#e structure as the cake cutting for both of those reasons. 7e has a distributive outco#e that he wants to convince you is a good thing, and he's going to create a hypothetical choice situation that will lead you to it, right? PERO

8ut that doesn't itself establish that it is a good thing. SE REQUIERE DE OTRO ARGUMENTO PARA DECIDIR QU ES UNA COSA BUENA ( Y RALWS LO DA, PERO NO EN LA MALA EXPOSICIN DE LA SITUACIN ORIGINAL / PEDAZO DE TORTA ) *ou have to have so#e other argu#ent to convince you that it is a good thing, and %'ll tell you what that argu#ent is, but it's co#pletely independent of this e(pository device that's #odeled on the cake cutting. -! 290"&%+%/, )2 -! 0"&%+%/, " %1%,!- :)2;2+T."&" ! 1.3 )2 !-W&< &o the e(pository device that's #odeled on the cake cutting goes like this. %t says i#agine you had to design a social order, a society in the broadest sense of the word. %t will include an econo#ic syste#, a political syste# and so on, and you didn't know whether you were going to turn out to be rich or poor, #ale or fe#ale, what race you were going to be, whether you were going to be an athlete or a nerd. *ou didn't have any particular infor#ation about yourself, whether you're going to have a high %4 or a low %4, #usical, not #usical, good athlete, a bad athlete, nothing. *ou didn't have that kind of infor#ation about yourself, which doesn't #ean that there could be people who didn't have those characteristics, right? 5ust like say you had to design the rules of chess and you didn't know whether or not you're going to be good at using bishop, better at using a bishop than using a knight, but you had to agree on certain rules, okay? = but in particular, you're not going to have the kind of knowledge that would allow you to bias things in your own direction. = -" >!,T%!," 2, !-W& &o that's the sense in which he's trying to be >antian. 7e calls his principles, "procedural e(pressions of the categorical i#perative." There's a #outhful for you on the first day back fro# spring break. We know what the categorical i#perative is, right? %t's the i#perative to choose things that are universali?able, things that you would will regardless of the consequence, so things you would will fro# every conceivable standpoint. !nd what awls is trying to do when he says there's a procedural e(pression of it, what he's trying to do is say, "Well, if you don't have knowledge of which kind of person you're going to turn out to be in ter#s of rich or poor, or #ale or fe#ale, or black or white, or 7ispanic, or so#e other ethnic group, or religious of so#e sort, or atheist, you don't know any of those things. *ou're going to have to think about, what are the best social rules for people regardless of who they turn out to be? !nd that's the sense in which he wants to think of hi#self as a >antian. !nd the idea of the original position is to force us, even while recogni?ing we're self'interested, to force us to think about society as a whole, to think about what would be desirable regardless of who you turned out to be. &2,T%)" )2 +",T !T" &"+%!- 2, !-W& !nd so then the basic way the book, if you had ti#e to read the whole book, the basic way the book proceeds is he starts out with this co#plete veil of ignorance and tries to get you to agree

with hi#. %n this sense it's not even really a social contract. 7e's not saying, "Would you agree with one another?" What he wants to say is, "Will you, the reader, agree with #e, 5ohn awls, that any rational person would choose the principles that %'# arguing for?" = the social contract isn't legiti#ate because anybody #ade it, but because it #ust be rational to #ake it = 2- ! 1.32,T" )2 -! 0 2;2 2,+%! )2 !-W& 2& 8@&%+!32,T2 +"30! !T%A" "%, 5ohn awls, want to persuade you, the reader, that any rational person would choose #y principles of $ustice over the going alternatives," because his style of thinking B people go on and on about awls being abstract, and an ideal theorist, and head in the clouds, but actually his actual way of proceeding isn't that. %t's co#parative. 8asically what he does is he says, "Well, what are the going alternatives?" There's utilitarianis#. There are other ones you haven't read in this course. There's perfectionis#, which is what he thinks of in !ristotle. There's 3ar(is#. "% want to show you that #y principle does better than the going alternatives fro# the perspective of being behind this veil of ignorance. %f so#ebody else co#es along with another principle and shows that it does even better than #ine then % would give it up." &o his basic #ode of reasoning is co#parative, okay?