<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in The Rawls in Rawlsekianism</title><link>http://willwilkinson.disqus.com/</link><description>The Sweet Release of Reason</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:03:02 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: The Rawls in Rawlsekianism</title><link>http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/08/the-rawls-in-rawlsekianism/#comment-3712754</link><description>any comments on&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/acknowledging-p.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;or &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murra...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">glory</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:03:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Rawls in Rawlsekianism</title><link>http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/08/the-rawls-in-rawlsekianism/#comment-3712753</link><description>"Rawlsekianism" is ok, I guess, but I think it would sound better as "Hayewlsianity". Let's get that one going instead.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Greg Newburn</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:24:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Rawls in Rawlsekianism</title><link>http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/08/the-rawls-in-rawlsekianism/#comment-3712752</link><description>The maxi-min principle is a good starting point, since, as you say, it shifts our focus away from inequality and moves it to a general concern for helping the worst off. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Rabid egalitarians--G.A. Cohen, Larry Temkin--generally bite the bullet and reject Rawls and accept the conclusion of the "Leveling Down Objection". They would prefer a world where all are poor rather than only some, since for them there is some "intrinsic", infinite value in equality.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Anyhow, two quesitons: the maxi-min principle has its virtues, but don't you think it overlooks the importance of numbers? If some distribution in the Rawlsian sense gave enormous benefits to a great, great many, while leaving a small few in poor conditions, wouldn't that be better than one where every one is poor? Or slightly better than poor? &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Second: given your Rawlsian inclination, why do you think he came to different conclusions than you? Was his theoretical Rawlsianism better than his applied? Why do all his disciples--Van Parijs, Josh Cohen, Sam Freeman, Korsgaard, Scanlon, Pogge, Nagel, Dworkin--all of them disagree with your applied Rawlsianism?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Rue Des Quatre Vents</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:09:12 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>