"... On Apr 11, 4:03 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: ..."
> There is a sophisticated version of 'do unto > others' in John Rawl's 'veil of objectivity' - but this is ignored and > objectivity confused with abilities in bureaucratic bulldung > peddling. To stand up against this is to declare oneself mad. The only references to a "veil of objectivity" I was able to find are in a critique of Rawls' "Original Position" by a Father Anthony J. Fitzgerald, S.J., Jurisprudential Wizard, Vol. 5, "Dan Corgill Begins the Shaman's Journey", and in "Loathing the sinner, medicalizing the sin: Why sexually violent predator statutes are unjust," International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Volume 30, Issue 1, January-February 2007, Pages 36-48, John Douard. The Wiki entry on Rawls talks about a 'veil of ignorance' though but that doesn't seem to fit what your saying. I read the complete entry on Rawls, which summarizes his theories in a nicely simplistic manner, and I find them lacking because they depend far too much on populist rationalism and reasonableness , neither of which do I believe the general population possess in any significant degree -- at least not for some time to come. I am however beginning to conclude that to stand up against injustice and unfairness IS to declare oneself mad. One of my favorite anecdotal asides is Sam Clemens' publisher's advice that he'd best wait till he was dead to publish "The War Prayer" due to the populist outcry it would engender. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
