Comments on: Hatin’ On Johnny Rawls http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/12/11/hatin-on-johnny-rawls/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: timothy waligore http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/12/11/hatin-on-johnny-rawls/comment-page-1/#comment-1407 timothy waligore Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:45:25 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1455#comment-1407 "Benefiting from others' wrongdoing does not make you a wrongdoer if you had no hand in it." However, can it ever be a wrong not to return ill-gotten gains or make compensation? Suppose my parents had stolen the money without my knowledge and given it to me so that I could pay for college. Suppose I find out that my parents robbed the bank before I pay my tuition bill. If I don't return it, but instead pay my tuition, I think this does affect my moral status. I assume you think it would be a different matter if I had spent the money already? (Or had spent the money on a good that could not further be exchanged for money?) “Benefiting from others’ wrongdoing does not make you a wrongdoer if you had no hand in it.”

However, can it ever be a wrong not to return ill-gotten gains or make compensation?

Suppose my parents had stolen the money without my knowledge and given it to me so that I could pay for college. Suppose I find out that my parents robbed the bank before I pay my tuition bill. If I don’t return it, but instead pay my tuition, I think this does affect my moral status.

I assume you think it would be a different matter if I had spent the money already? (Or had spent the money on a good that could not further be exchanged for money?)

]]> By: steveintheknow http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/12/11/hatin-on-johnny-rawls/comment-page-1/#comment-1406 steveintheknow Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:25:51 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1455#comment-1406 When I read this yesterday I was compelled, as I have never really thought about this as a result of redistribution prior, by the argument of degraded moral status of the ââ?¬Å?the person to whom goods are being distributed at the expense of othersââ?¬Â. Perhaps its because the philosophy behind the argument supports a practical solution that I already favored before hearing the argument, therefore causing me to yield at the face value of the argument. Which of course is merely a preaching to the choir situation, void of any meaning. Your critique is strong, and points out flaws that I didnââ?¬â?¢t notice. Especially in questioning the real value of determining moral status of anyone in any circumstance. However I feel, while possibly over reaching, the sentiment behind such an effort comes from a tenable position, and serves an important purpose. The purpose, I guess, would be in trying to achieve a balancing of perspective. One in which has been skewed toward viewing such persons as victims of others excessive wealth. That last bit would be my assertion, void of any ââ?¬Å?proofââ?¬Â. The mistake made in using the term thief perhaps is in the degree to which ones morality can be attributed to someone elseââ?¬â?¢s action, as you pointed out. However the distinction is not totally off the mark. I would say the class in scrutiny is definitely the beneficiary of theft. And not in the totally benign way suggested by your college student analogy. After all we do live in a democracy, and if the will of the people means anything, which it might not, it should also include some degree of responsibility. Of course there are so many holes in that last assertion that you could strain pasta with it. Anyway I know little about Rawls, and have enjoyed reading Catoââ?¬â?¢s little debate about him. And of course, you are very adept at keeping fools in check. When I read this yesterday I was compelled, as I have never really thought about this as a result of redistribution prior, by the argument of degraded moral status of the ââ?¬Å?the person to whom goods are being distributed at the expense of othersââ?¬Â. Perhaps its because the philosophy behind the argument supports a practical solution that I already favored before hearing the argument, therefore causing me to yield at the face value of the argument. Which of course is merely a preaching to the choir situation, void of any meaning.

Your critique is strong, and points out flaws that I didnââ?¬â?¢t notice. Especially in questioning the real value of determining moral status of anyone in any circumstance. However I feel, while possibly over reaching, the sentiment behind such an effort comes from a tenable position, and serves an important purpose. The purpose, I guess, would be in trying to achieve a balancing of perspective. One in which has been skewed toward viewing such persons as victims of others excessive wealth. That last bit would be my assertion, void of any ââ?¬Å?proofââ?¬Â.

The mistake made in using the term thief perhaps is in the degree to which ones morality can be attributed to someone else�s action, as you pointed out. However the distinction is not totally off the mark. I would say the class in scrutiny is definitely the beneficiary of theft. And not in the totally benign way suggested by your college student analogy. After all we do live in a democracy, and if the will of the people means anything, which it might not, it should also include some degree of responsibility. Of course there are so many holes in that last assertion that you could strain pasta with it.

Anyway I know little about Rawls, and have enjoyed reading Cato�s little debate about him. And of course, you are very adept at keeping fools in check.

]]>