Today in class, we started to talk about John Rawls and his "Theory of Justice". This was very interesting to me because it relates to us in a way that the others haven't. The example given was that of the "original state/condition" where the moral agents creating the society are behind a veil of ignorance. We were asked about different liberties or freedoms that we thought the agents would develop for their new society. Most of them were ones that we have such as basic political liberties, freedom of speech/assembly, freedom of conscious/thought, private property, due process/equality before the law, freedom of the person and freedom to contract. One of the discussion we entered into about these liberties was if the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms) would be a logical liberty for these agents to develop for their new society. Some of the arguments were things like "what if people wanted to hunt" or "what if they were starving". I feel like these were really decent points.
The other things we talked about were Rawls's principles. The first was the Liberty Principle which stated that each person is to have the most extensive set of basic liberties compatible with the same liberty for everyone else. This is how we got on the discussion from above. The second principle was the Different Principle which stated that social and economic inequalities will be arranged such that (a) they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) they are attatched to offices and positions open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
My question is: What do you think of these Principles so far? Do you think that the Second Amendment should be a basic liberty given to everyone? Are there any other
basic liberties that you would think a rational moral agent would give to their
new society?
I think that the principles stated thus far should apply to everyone in the "new society". The principle for people to have the right to bear arms is still questionable in my opinion. Yes, people should have the right to kill game and have food, but the question will come up about will people go out and kill other people? Another freedom that people should have would be to have freedom of petition.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the right to bear arms should be a basic liberty. This would lead this new society to a more violent world like the one we have today.
ReplyDeleteThe right to bear arms should be something everyone has the opportunity for. I know this argument has been used in the past but I'll bring it up again, the reason we have this right is to (if ever needed) overthrow the government if it were to become oppressive and begin taking away our rights like the one in question. I don't think personal gun ownership should be a question of having it for fun, hunting, or competition but simply for the precaution of what I stated before. It's the modern day lobbying and brainwashing by the NRA that has convinced people that the "right to bear arms" is all about personal gun ownership when really we need to be focused more on what it's true purpose is; protecting our rights as citizens.
ReplyDeleteThe principles should apply to all people in the ''new society''. The second amendment should not because it would lead to a more violent society and a lot of people would be killed.
ReplyDeleteI think people often forget what time period the country was in when we made the second amendment. We didn't have automatic (or even semi-automatic) weapons that could mass murder. People really don't need that as protection, and we have been peaceful on American soil for a while now.
ReplyDelete