ellauri033.html on line 632: Spinozalla on teoreemana might is right. Haanpää päätyi samaan lopputulemaan. Se on ratki axiomaattista. Oikein on pelisäännön mukaista, ja pelisäännöt ratkee voimasuhteista. Aristoteles ja Rawlskin sanoo niin. Ei se ole muuta kuin Newtonin laki voimien resultantista siirrettynä elolliseen maailmaan.
ellauri062.html on line 384: Typerä John Rawls jota luin 70-luvulla pöpisi veil of ignorancesta. Se oli sellasta talousliberaalia peliteoriaa. Aivan perseestä, ajattelin silloin jo. Aristoteleeseen nähden takapakkia.
ellauri079.html on line 238: In this article, the ability of partnerships to generate goods that enhance the quality-of-life of socially and economically deprived urban communities is explored. Drawing on Rawl's study on social justice [Rawls, J.: 1971, A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, Cambridge)] and Sen's capabilities approach [Sen, A.: 1992, Inequality Re-Examined (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA); 1999, Development as Freedom (Oxford University Press, Oxford); 2009, The Idea of Justice (Ellen Lane, London)], we undertake an ethical evaluation of the effectiveness of different (...)
ellauri115.html on line 975: Alun perin termiä käytti Jean-Jacques Rousseau teoksessaan Yhteiskuntasopimuksesta. Yhteiskuntasopimuksen perusidean mukaista valtioihannetta kannattivat häntä ennen kuitenkin jo Thomas Hobbes, John Locke ja Hugo Grotius. 1900-luvulla yhteiskuntasopimusperinnettä on edustanut John Rawls. Se tietämättömyyden pyllyverhokaveri. Hyvin ällö ja epis oikispää.
ellauri219.html on line 579: Tää olis nyt Tietämättömyyden pilvi, jota ei pidä sekoittaa Wilhon kirjahyllyn Salaisuuxien verhoon eikä John Rawlsin Veil of ignoranceen. Oliko Rawls muuten katoliikki? En ihmettelisi. Ei vaan episkopaali, mutta silti vittu. Sen Theory of Justice oli musta täysin paska. Ällö kapitalismin apologia. Mixi Rawls oli sellainen paska, paizi että jenkki?
ellauri219.html on line 581: Two of his brothers died in childhood because they had contracted fatal illnesses from him. In 1928, the seven-year-old Rawls contracted diphtheria. His brother Bobby, younger by 20 months, visited him in his room and was fatally infected. The next winter, Rawls contracted pneumonia. Another younger brother, Tommy, caught the illness from him and died.

Hahaa, sun vika John! Olet perisyntinen!
ellauri219.html on line 583: At Princeton, Rawls was influenced by Norman Malcolm, Ludwig Wittgenstein's dumb student. During his last two years at Princeton, he "became deeply concerned with theology and its doctrines." He considered attending a seminary to study for the Episcopal priesthood and wrote an "intensely religious senior thesis (BI)." In his 181-page long thesis titled "Meaning of Sin and Faith," Rawls attacked Pelagianism because it "would render the Cross of Christ to no effect." His argument was partly drawn from Karl Marx's book On the Jewish Question, which criticized the idea that natural inequality in ability could be a just determiner of the distribution of wealth in society. Even after Rawls became an atheist, many of the anti-Pelagian arguments he used were repeated in A Theory of Justice. Pelagianism is a heretical Christian theological position that holds that the original sin did not taint human nature and that humans by divine grace have free will to achieve human perfection. Pelagius (c. 355 – c. 420 AD), an ascetic and philosopher from the British Isles, taught that God could not command believers to do the impossible, and therefore it must be possible to satisfy all divine commandments. He also taught that it was unjust to punish one person for the sins of another; therefore, infants are born blameless. Pelagius accepted no excuse for sinful behavior and taught that all Christians, regardless of their station in life, should live unimpeachable, sinless lives, or else... Se oli tollanen humanisti, mitä Hippo aivan erityisesti inhosi. Vittu eihän sitten mitään kirkkoa ja pappeja edes tarvittaisi. Jeesus jäisi työttömäxi, Jahve eläkkeelle.
ellauri219.html on line 587: Rawls graduated from Princeton in 1943 with a Bachelor of Arts summa cum laude.
ellauri219.html on line 588: Rawls enlisted in the U.S. Army in February 1943. During World War II, Rawls served as an infantryman in the Pacific, where he served a tour of duty in New Guinea and was awarded a Bronze Star; and the Philippines, where he endured intensive trench warfare and witnessed traumatizing scenes of violence and bloodshed. It was there that he lost his Christian faith and became an atheist.
ellauri219.html on line 592: Following the surrender of Japan, Rawls became part of General MacArthur's occupying army and was promoted to sergeant. But he became disillusioned with the military when he saw the aftermath of the atomic blast in Hiroshima. Rawls then disobeyed an order to discipline a fellow soldier, "believing no punishment was justified," and was "demoted back to a private." Disenchanted, he left the military in January 1946.
ellauri219.html on line 594: Rawls received his Ph.D. from Princeton in 1950 after completing a doct
ellauri219.html on line 597: In his autobiographical essay, “On My Religion,” Rawls explains why he abandoned his orthodox Christian beliefs in spite of the deeply religious temperament that informed his life and writings. In particular, he recounts how his personal experiences during the Second World War, and especially his awareness of the Holocaust, led him to question whether prayer was possible. “To interpret history as expressing God’s will, God’s will must accord with the most basic ideas of justice as we know them. For what else can the most basic justice be? Thus, I soon came to reject the idea of the supremacy of the divine will as [like the Holocaust] also hideous and evil.” Furthermore, by studying the history of the Inquisition Rawls came to “think of the denial of religious freedom and liberty of conscience as a very great evil,” such that “it makes the claims of the Popes to infallibility impossible to accept.” Finally, his reading of Jean Bodin’s thoughts about toleration led him to claim that religions should be “each reasonable, and accept the idea of public reason and its idea of the domain of the political.” Against this background, it is no wonder that Rawls considers the very concept of religious truth as authoritarian and intolerant, and the ensuing persecution of dissenters as the curse of Christianity.
ellauri219.html on line 599: Pope Benedict’s basic answer is that, although modern principles of political freedom, democracy, equality, and reasonable argument are to be affirmed, a free state rests on “pre-political moral foundations,” which serve as normative points of reference for every regime and must be held in common by all religions and secular world-views. This answer reflects the fact that Pope Benedict disagrees with Rawls on at least two fundamental issues, which constitute the core of the debate between them and to which I shall refer regularly in the course of my analysis. In the first place, Pope Benedict does not share Rawls’s trust in fundamental human reasonableness as a guarantee for political fairness. For Rawls, persons are reasonable when they are ready to propose principles and standards as fair terms of cooperation and to abide by them willingly, given the assurance that others will likewise do so. Those norms they view as reasonable for everyone to accept and therefore as justifiable to them; and they are ready to discuss the fair terms that others propose.
ellauri219.html on line 601: This idea of reasonableness informs the whole project of Rawls’s political liberalism, because “the form and content of this reason … are part of the idea of democracy itself.” In contrast, Pope Benedict, although consistently stressing the importance of reason in all human affairs, is much more pessimistic about Rawls’s claim that human beings, who are always children of their own time and cultural situation, are reasonable enough to provide the general principles or standards that are necessary for specifying fair cooperation/competition.

Joo olen kyllä Pentin kannalla siinä että nää termiittiapinat on aivan vitun tyhmiä, täysin beyond redemption. Ei ne ole toisilleen hyvänsuopia ellei niillä izellä mene paremmin. Mitä uutta kissimirrit tässä? Ei mitään, samaa paskanjauhantaa.
ellauri341.html on line 187: "Ei oikeuden tehtävä ole olla tasapuolinen, vaan oikeudenmukainen." Pelottava deviisi. Sitähän se sanoi Aristoteles ja sen perästä britti Rawls: oikeus on se että jokaisen osuus on sen haban mukainen: vahvemmalle enemmän ja narukauloille jämät. Juutalaisistakin meni uuniin köyhimyxet, pohatoille järjestyi kyyti jenkkeihin, Eretz Israeliin tahi Schweiziin. Aina ei vain ole helppoa olla kaikille oikeudenmukainen yhtä aikaa. LOL.
xxx/ellauri387.html on line 528: Juutalainen jokapaikan filosofi Martha Nussipuu väittää esseessä "Sophistry about Conventions", että Fishin teoreettiset näkemykset perustuvat "äärirelativismiin ja jopa radikaaliin subjektivismiin". Nussbaum väittää, että Fish " luottautuu säätelevään ristiriitaisuuden periaatteeseen ratkaistakseen kilpailevien periaatteiden välillä", luottaen siten normatiivisiin argumentaatiostandardeihin, vaikka hän väittää niitä vastaan. Se noudattaa Kimchin logiikkaa. Kissa on matolla mutten usko sitä. Tarjoten vaihtoehtoa Nussbaum lainaa pöljän oikeisto-oikeusfilosofin John Rawlsin työtä julkaisussa A Theory of Justice korostaakseen "esimerkkiä rationaalisesta argumentista; sen voidaan sanoa antavan täydellisesti tunnistettavissa olevassa mielessä eettisen totuuden". Nussbaum omaksuu Rawlsin kritiikin utilitarismin riittämättömyydestä osoittaen, että rationaalinen ihminen pitää johdonmukaisesti parempana oikeusjärjestelmää, joka tunnustaa erillisten henkilöiden väliset rajat sen sijaan, että luottaisi halujen kokonaissummaan. "Tämä", hän väittää, "on täysin erilaista kuin retorinen manipulointi." Panopuu on niin oikeistolainen että hirvittää.
xxx/ellauri414.html on line 335: Kaikki justicesta lässyttävät keskustaoikeistolaiset on syvältä persereijästä. Filosofisesti sillä on se etu, että se paljastaa Rousseaun kirjoituksissa ainutlaatuisen yhteiskuntasopimusteorian tyypin, joka on päättäväisesti ei-hypoteettinen ja normatiivisesti vankka. Viimeisissä osissa tarkastelen uudelleen usein esitettyä kysymystä Rousseaun suhteesta Rawlsiin tässä ehdotetun tulkinnan valossa. Rawls on (oli? juu, kuoli 2002) vielä 1 paskaläjä hännänhuippuna. Uskonnollisuus ja musikaalisuus kulkevat näillä käsi kädessä.
17