Rawls discuses ideas of public reasons and ties it into the liberalist view that he has been working on. Sandel critiques Rawls ideas and puts them into another perspective before he starts to jump into his own ideas of communitarianism. Both philosophers bring up some good points, but as Sandel argues against Rawls he is bringing up some issues that can apply to his theory as well one of the biggest being the overly optimist or pessimistic views that they hold over humanity. Sandel argues in a way that reframes the situation to a more emotional argument rather than logical.
Rawls uses his ideas about public reason and believe it should be applied into the political arena in which it could be very effective. This idea sums up to be what should …show more content…
Also, discussed by Macintyre, people have loyalties especially to that of the communities they are a part of (citation). This is something that Sandel agrees with Macintyre on. They will not be able to let go of these ideas in the case of what they think is right. This argument is highly compelling, but to consider either side of the argument is either being way too optimistic or way too pessimistic. Neither option is optimal.
In response, I believe that Rawls would defend that public reason is more for those in important offices or for those who are in positions of power. He understands that it is difficult, but people who are making laws and decisions on the behalf of others should be able to use public reasoning to get into office and make decisions. Rawls still thinks it would be best to have a ruler use ideas that justify improving the masses rather than focus on smaller …show more content…
These values and ideas are in place to stand against what is considered the norm or even to try and cause social change. To consider each one of these ideas becomes time consuming and counterproductive. Sandel’s position states that each of these is must be validly taken into consideration (citation). This idea itself it too optimistic and emotionally charged. This idea of discussion and argument makes things especially in the political field too loud and noisy for things to get done. On my part this may be pessimistic, but even if it could be executed properly, there are still too many ideas to consider.
Sandel argues Rawls on the ideas of what a free and rational person would or should do through their theories of Communitarianism for Sandel and Liberalism for Rawls. Sandel in his argument is pointing out the flaws with Rawl’s argument, but at the same time he is point out some of his own. Humans are much to unpredictable and the way Sandel frames his arguments against Rawls put an emphasis on emotions rather than logic and that makes his arguments and theory much less
Rawls uses his ideas about public reason and believe it should be applied into the political arena in which it could be very effective. This idea sums up to be what should …show more content…
Also, discussed by Macintyre, people have loyalties especially to that of the communities they are a part of (citation). This is something that Sandel agrees with Macintyre on. They will not be able to let go of these ideas in the case of what they think is right. This argument is highly compelling, but to consider either side of the argument is either being way too optimistic or way too pessimistic. Neither option is optimal.
In response, I believe that Rawls would defend that public reason is more for those in important offices or for those who are in positions of power. He understands that it is difficult, but people who are making laws and decisions on the behalf of others should be able to use public reasoning to get into office and make decisions. Rawls still thinks it would be best to have a ruler use ideas that justify improving the masses rather than focus on smaller …show more content…
These values and ideas are in place to stand against what is considered the norm or even to try and cause social change. To consider each one of these ideas becomes time consuming and counterproductive. Sandel’s position states that each of these is must be validly taken into consideration (citation). This idea itself it too optimistic and emotionally charged. This idea of discussion and argument makes things especially in the political field too loud and noisy for things to get done. On my part this may be pessimistic, but even if it could be executed properly, there are still too many ideas to consider.
Sandel argues Rawls on the ideas of what a free and rational person would or should do through their theories of Communitarianism for Sandel and Liberalism for Rawls. Sandel in his argument is pointing out the flaws with Rawl’s argument, but at the same time he is point out some of his own. Humans are much to unpredictable and the way Sandel frames his arguments against Rawls put an emphasis on emotions rather than logic and that makes his arguments and theory much less