You can decide what political and social philosophy the society will follow, but you have no idea what your role in society will be. You could be on top or on the bottom. So, for example, you probably wouldn't want to choose a society with slavery, because while you may not have to work and live a life of luxury, you may also get the role of the lowest slave. You also have no knowledge of the abilities or disabilities you will be born with either.
Please be as specific as possible. If you're going to say "capitalism", for example, say whether you would want capitalism with a welfare state or libertarian capitalism or whatever.
Yes, this does come from John Rawls. He thought that most people would choose a certain way. I am just seeing what people actually choose.
2006-09-09 10:42:51 · 12 answers · asked by student_of_life 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
That is an incredibly difficult question to answer, but you know that! Sir Thomas Moore had a fine time with this one...
We all have an intinct for self-preservation and so I would have to go for a society that didn't put people to death for reasons such as being born disabled or being a twin, for example. (There are cultures that would not allow twins to live as they believed one of the babies was a devil copy of the other so they killed them both, and they killed severely disabled children either because they were a drain on meagre resources or they were believed to be cursed by the gods.) After all, I am to be born into this society so I want to live a while within it...
That also means I'd be wary of a society with a strong theocratic base. Too risky. Too easy to place blame and point fingers and invent rules for non-compliance. Too...elitist.
Politically, it would have to be based on a system of rotating leadership, with rights of universal suffrage so that people could vote out any leader who was considered too problematic. It also must not be subordinate to another higher political power outside of the control of those within it.
The society would have to be careful in relying too much on trade with outsiders. That leads to the chances of blackmailing the whole society by denying essential goods. These days we call it 'trade sanctions'.
A plain barter system can work fairly well and reduces the risk of a small number of individuals controlling the money supply or the value of money, but I am not an economist so I cannot say if it would function effectively in the greater long term. But there would need to be ways to exchange labour for goods.
Reeferring to my first point, the society would need to have a philosophy of respect for life and for the rights of people to be treated fairly."Fairness" is relative, of course, but certainly sounds better than "justice", which is a minefield IMHO. I have seen too many horrors committed in the name of "justice".
So, not a true Utopia -- as that is almost impossible anyway -- but at least something approaching it. In other words, it would be more socialist than pure capitalist, but with an overlay of fairly advanced philosophy. A society where, for example, a poet would be just as likely to become a leader as a successful businessperson would.
Lenky.
2006-09-09 11:05:51 · answer #1 · answered by Lenky 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Rawls set-up was that the chosers don't know any societies (a totally uninfluenced choice). Unfortunatley you're going to have to do one of those psychology test style questionnaires to test this for real (you know the type of test I mean - the ones where they disguise what they're after).
My answer, with knowledge and thus non-Rawlsian, is England. Now I am English, so this is biased, but I do think that we have the best balance of opportunity and security there is in the world at the moment. We do have problems with prejudice but, as most anti-racist and anti-prejudice campagners agree England is waaay ahead of anywhere else.
As I said, I'm English - so I'm biased (and Everton beat Liverpool 3:0 today so I'm feeling good)!
2006-09-09 11:13:52 · answer #2 · answered by anthonypaullloyd 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I personally dream of a place with no true government, just an acknowledged "laws", or understandings to abide by, slavery out, choice in, happiness in, freedom in, freedom of press out(I don't care what is published in a book, but the news media can exculate problem to hieght that make ppl shack), free health care in, a form of a barter system(u work, I work, we both provide services in some way to each other, so here take this bag of groceries), enough land for each individual born (there own land, no taxes, morgages, ect), taxes out(if god, or nature gave us certain right those right also pertain to thing that come from nature, and since every thing come from nature some how, then no taxes). A society where no matter whats going on, you can always feel secure, and happy.
2006-09-09 10:59:46 · answer #3 · answered by Derrick 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Answerers should stop saying 'England' or 'USA' for their answers. We live in a global capitalist system where the actions of countries like the US have an effect on the rest of the world. If a US style system is the society you pick, you have to be prepared for the random person you come out as (in the Rawls test) to be, perhaps, a sub-Saharan African and maybe not a citizen of one of the countries that are the chief beneficiaries of the global system.
2006-09-09 11:20:52 · answer #4 · answered by DS 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd choose the society that had the largest amount of fairness and egalitarianism. There wouldn't be very much poverty or aristocracy, but people who were smart and hard-working would still gain some advantages over less intelligent and lazier people.
I'm not sure which society that would be. The Mandan tribe in what is now North and South Dakota come to mind. I think I'd like to live it that society, but only many, many generations before the arrival of Europeans.
2006-09-09 10:51:50 · answer #5 · answered by mistersato 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would pick the kind of society where the goals of all its members would point in the same direction.
Capitalism is the exact opposite because goals are individualistic.
Communism is just as bad because it doesn't let you have goals.
I would go with inspired despotism. A society where a great leader is leading his people to an important goal. He is brave, just, loving.
But these kind of societies only exist briefly and in times of crisis (wars mainly). I wouldn't mind being born as that king but also I wouldn't mind being his lowest servant.
2006-09-09 12:22:42 · answer #6 · answered by Divra 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A society where children are cherished, and where raising a child is treated as a sacred trust. Where people would not have children unless they were qualified to raise and nurture them. I cannot thing of a more important trust in life than the nurturing of a human soul.
2006-09-09 10:55:39 · answer #7 · answered by The Gadfly 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think I would pick a society to live in like the one described in Walden ll. Even Walden (one) described by Henry David Thoreau sounds like a good idea to me. I believe that freedom is a kind of way we learn to live. It comes through many channels but they mostly track through personal responsibility, skill as in mastery and accepting ourselves and others. Did I mention that I believe in finding the healthiest way to live my life and then doing it to the best of my ability.
2006-09-09 12:55:14 · answer #8 · answered by mike t 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Capitalism with a heart. So I'm satisfied with the USA.
2006-09-09 10:50:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It certainly would not be yours, You should put down your books and get into the real world.
2006-09-10 19:24:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋