(via Ezra's post) Hilzoy has a follow-up post defending Rawls.
Thus, there is nothing particularly odd about a political philosopher being concerned with the question: how can we construct a community within which all persons can flourish? That's (one way to take) one of the central questions of political philosophy. However, defining Christianity as centrally concerned with the construction of community is not, to my mind, an obvious move. (Love, yes; the nature of community, no.) What's striking about the thesis, besides the cast of Rawls' mind and the glimpses of his twenty-odd year old self, is not how Christian his later work was (it isn't), but how very Rawlsian his take on Christianity is.
1 comment:
Where was the first post on Rawls? Is there a readers digest on this, it's waaaaay "wonkish" (blog dork word).
I would say look at some native american societies if you want to see true egalitarianism. There was no massive govt to take from the rich and give to the poor, it was a given as part of the community.
In fact, I would argue that any religion formed out of an agrarian society was created for control of the masses as early religious leaders declared they could "make it rain" (literally) and provide water for the masses' crops. Religion worked in a triumvirate with the king and military (strong arm enforcers/protectors)in producing a caste system and thus inventing the start of inequality.
If we truly want to be "equal" we need to abandon agrarian-based societies and return to a hunter gatherer state.
The End (you may now kiss Meg Ryan)
Post a Comment