A Just Set Of Laws

What is justice? A modern philosopher, John Rawls, created a thought experiment concerning just this. How could lawmakers discern what would be the perfectly “just” set of laws for society? His experiment was thus: have the lawmakers create a set of laws knowing full well they will die upon implementing these “just” laws. Here's the rub.....they are told they will then be reincarnated with no knowledge of what position they will hold in this forthcoming society they alone have shaped.

Will they be part of the ruling class? Will they constitute the elite and hence own the means of production? Or will they perhaps be merely a “mediocre” member of the proletariat? This forces the committee to create laws which are fair for all classes, hence perfectly “just” laws. Without this “arrangement”, any potential lawmaker will tend to advocate laws which sweeten his position above that of others. Now, now! No need to judge him.....after all, this is largely unconscious. Furthermore, if you were in this position, you would almost certainly do the same as well. As would I.

Remember, much in life is a zero-sum-game and as such, somebody wins and somebody loses. How many of those in a position to make laws are going to do so predicated on that which is not advantageous to them? Few or none in my opinion.

The trouble with this thought experiment is it “forces” anybody in this position to disassociate from evolutionary group selection. Which is no doubt what most of us unconsciously gravitate toward. And why would we not? This is likely obvious to those that believe in evolution.

On the other hand, for those that do not believe in evolution as a means to explain our inherent selfishness, why might this be so? Satan? Who or what is Satan? Perhaps a metaphor for our penchant to be selfish? But what might this be? Evolutionary group selection?

OK.....I admit it.....I'm SELFISH!

I'm reading the newspaper and come across an editorial questioning how we should deal with the backlog of social security recipients in this fine state of Georgia. “I could not care less about this issue owing to the fact that it does not affect me one iota (at least not yet),” the thought occurs to me.

One might be quick to judge me as being selfish. And you know what? You're right! But ask yourself: is this any different a manner in which "I" justify my viewpoints on society's problems?

If you make incredible amounts of money, what are you going to care about? More than likely voting for a candidate that will keep taxes low to preserve your hard-earned money, something or other.

Conversely, if you make little or no money because of laziness or lack of skills or whatever other reason, what are you going to care about? More than likely the candidate which will maintain and/or create entitlements for you by taxing the “evil” rich.

If this is scoffed at because you rise above this selfish standard, yours is most certainly in the minority. But alas, it is not the minority view that “rules the roost” so to speak. It is what the majority does or thinks. 

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not judging those that think selfishly. This would include yours truly and why would I ever want to judge MOI? I am simply pointing out what is with no implication to what should be.

This not wanting to judge oneself is the principle reason judgment is so arbitrary and hence hypocritical. 

It is imperative to point out that this strict avoidance of self-judgment is almost always unconscious which is why most vehemently deny being hypocritical.

Alas, simply judge and condemn others engaging in selfish behaviors you do not involve yourself in and hide behind or attempt to assuage the evilness of the selfish behaviors you do involve yourself in.

Personal God?

Personal to whom? To me? To you? To them? I do not believe any type of existent God could be personal. At least insofar as how we individually and, dare I say, selfishly define personal. And why would we not? Or rather how could we not? What is personal if it does not revolve around self? Ideas of a personal God then seem to naturally mimic our individual preferences and whims.

But this will often conflict with a collective concept of what is preferable and desirable for society as a whole which is the only type of view I could ever imagine a hypothetical God espousing. Otherwise, whose side might He be on when there is disagreement?

Do you not see how arbitrary any answer to this is? In light of this dilemma, is it now quite apparent God's view must revolve around a collective perspective?

So in essence, I am saying that our individual concepts as to what makes God personal are by definition very selfish! If God acquiesces to my personal preferences, how then could He be personal to somebody else with competing preferences?

In the quintessential competition that is war, for example, somebody wins and somebody loses. How could God be personal to both? Therefore, there seems to be a dilemma with the idea of a personal God.