3 added 154 characters in body
source | link

The original position is Rawls replacement of the (hypothetical) originary state of Mankind theorised in social contract theory - the state of nature, as by Hobbes; the principles that govern society are to be chosen behind a veil of ignorance; in the original position one does not know what talents, what gender what race or intelligence one will be endowed with; hence Rawls argue that fairness will govern society.

One supposes in this situation that eugenics would be ruled out; for after the veil is removed perhaps you find that one is in a category in which non-existence is prescribed, for you're not of the best genetic stock.

Now Rawls writes just prior to your extract:

I have assumed so far that the distribution of natural assets is a fact of nature and that no attempt is made to change it, or even to take it into account.

Up until this point Rawls had analysed the institutions of society and not individuals; he will now go on to discuss Justice for inividuals but before doing so he commits himself to not discussing the 'natural assets' - that is the talents of a man - seeing them fixed; he won't discuss in depth the possibility of change; this of course is known as Eugenics, and Rawls will have known its implication in the Holocaust;Holocaust (as described by Hannah Arendt in her densely detailed book - Totalitarianism - the science of eugenics was widespread on both sides of the Atlantic); and this is the reason for his silence; his intellectual honesty pushes him to note however that:

But to some extent this distribution is bound to be affected by the social system. A caste system, for example, tends to divide society into separate biological populations; while an open society encourages the widest genetic diversity

and also

In addition, it is possible to adopt eugenic policies, more or less explicit. I shall not consider questions of eugenics, confining myself throughout to the traditional concerns of social justice.

He affirms here, that post-holocaust questions such as these were not even possible to speculate on.

So the answer to your question is no; Rawls refuses to develop a theory of eugenics; he purely admits its possibility.

The original position is Rawls replacement of the (hypothetical) originary state of Mankind theorised in social contract theory - the state of nature, as by Hobbes; the principles that govern society are to be chosen behind a veil of ignorance; in the original position one does not know what talents, what gender what race or intelligence one will be endowed with; hence Rawls argue that fairness will govern society.

One supposes in this situation that eugenics would be ruled out; for after the veil is removed perhaps you find that one is in a category in which non-existence is prescribed, for you're not of the best genetic stock.

Now Rawls writes just prior to your extract:

I have assumed so far that the distribution of natural assets is a fact of nature and that no attempt is made to change it, or even to take it into account.

Up until this point Rawls had analysed the institutions of society and not individuals; he will now go on to discuss Justice for inividuals but before doing so he commits himself to not discussing the 'natural assets' - that is the talents of a man - seeing them fixed; he won't discuss in depth the possibility of change; this of course is known as Eugenics, and Rawls will have known its implication in the Holocaust; and this is the reason for his silence; his intellectual honesty pushes him to note however that:

But to some extent this distribution is bound to be affected by the social system. A caste system, for example, tends to divide society into separate biological populations; while an open society encourages the widest genetic diversity

and also

In addition, it is possible to adopt eugenic policies, more or less explicit. I shall not consider questions of eugenics, confining myself throughout to the traditional concerns of social justice.

He affirms here, that post-holocaust questions such as these were not even possible to speculate on.

So the answer to your question is no; Rawls refuses to develop a theory of eugenics; he purely admits its possibility.

The original position is Rawls replacement of the (hypothetical) originary state of Mankind theorised in social contract theory - the state of nature, as by Hobbes; the principles that govern society are to be chosen behind a veil of ignorance; in the original position one does not know what talents, what gender what race or intelligence one will be endowed with; hence Rawls argue that fairness will govern society.

One supposes in this situation that eugenics would be ruled out; for after the veil is removed perhaps you find that one is in a category in which non-existence is prescribed, for you're not of the best genetic stock.

Now Rawls writes just prior to your extract:

I have assumed so far that the distribution of natural assets is a fact of nature and that no attempt is made to change it, or even to take it into account.

Up until this point Rawls had analysed the institutions of society and not individuals; he will now go on to discuss Justice for inividuals but before doing so he commits himself to not discussing the 'natural assets' - that is the talents of a man - seeing them fixed; he won't discuss in depth the possibility of change; this of course is known as Eugenics, and Rawls will have known its implication in the Holocaust (as described by Hannah Arendt in her densely detailed book - Totalitarianism - the science of eugenics was widespread on both sides of the Atlantic); and this is the reason for his silence; his intellectual honesty pushes him to note however that:

But to some extent this distribution is bound to be affected by the social system. A caste system, for example, tends to divide society into separate biological populations; while an open society encourages the widest genetic diversity

and also

In addition, it is possible to adopt eugenic policies, more or less explicit. I shall not consider questions of eugenics, confining myself throughout to the traditional concerns of social justice.

He affirms here, that post-holocaust questions such as these were not even possible to speculate on.

So the answer to your question is no; Rawls refuses to develop a theory of eugenics; he purely admits its possibility.

2 added 118 characters in body
source | link

The original position is Rawls replacement of the (hypothetical) originary state of Mankind theorised in social contract theory - the state of nature, as by Hobbes; the principles that govern society are to be chosen behind a veil of ignorance; in the original position one does not know what talents, what gender what race or intelligence one will be endowed with; hence Rawls argue that fairness will govern society.

One supposes in this situation that eugenics would be ruled out; for after the veil is removed perhaps you find that one is in a category in which non-existence is prescribed, for you're not of the best genetic stock.

Now Rawls writes just prior to your extract:

I have assumed so far that the distribution of natural assets is a fact of nature and that no attempt is made to change it, or even to take it into account.

Up until this point Rawls had analysed the institutions of society and not individuals; he will now go on to discuss Justice for inividuals but before doing so he commits himself to not discussing the 'natural assets' - that is the talents of a man - seeing them fixed; he won't discuss in depth the possibility of change; this of course is known as Eugenics, and Rawls will have known its implication in the Holocaust; and this is the reason for his silence; his intellectual honesty pushes him to note however that:

But to some extent this distribution is bound to be affected by the social system. A caste system, for example, tends to divide society into separate biological populations; while an open society encourages the widest genetic diversity

and also

In addition, it is possible to adopt eugenic policies, more or less explicit. I shall not consider questions of eugenics, confining myself throughout to the traditional concerns of social justice.

He affirms here, that post-holocaust questions such as these were not even possible to speculate on.

So the answer to your question is no; Rawls refuses to develop a theory of eugenics; he purely admits its possibility.

The original position is Rawls replacement of the (hypothetical) originary state of Mankind theorised in social contract theory - the state of nature, as by Hobbes; the principles that govern society are to be chosen behind a veil of ignorance; in the original position one does not know what talents, what gender what race or intelligence one will be endowed with; hence Rawls argue that fairness will govern society.

One supposes in this situation that eugenics would be ruled out; for after the veil is removed perhaps you find that one is in a category in which non-existence is prescribed, for you're not of the best genetic stock.

Now Rawls writes just prior to your extract:

I have assumed so far that the distribution of natural assets is a fact of nature and that no attempt is made to change it, or even to take it into account.

Up until this point Rawls had analysed the institutions of society and not individuals; he will now go on to discuss Justice for inividuals but before doing so he commits himself to not discussing the 'natural assets' - that is the talents of a man - seeing them fixed; he won't discuss in depth the possibility of change; this of course is known as Eugenics, and Rawls will have known its implication in the Holocaust; and this is the reason for his silence; his intellectual honesty pushes him to note however that:

But to some extent this distribution is bound to be affected by the social system. A caste system, for example, tends to divide society into separate biological populations; while an open society encourages the widest genetic diversity

and also

In addition, it is possible to adopt eugenic policies, more or less explicit. I shall not consider questions of eugenics, confining myself throughout to the traditional concerns of social justice.

He affirms here, that post-holocaust questions such as these were not even possible to speculate on.

The original position is Rawls replacement of the (hypothetical) originary state of Mankind theorised in social contract theory - the state of nature, as by Hobbes; the principles that govern society are to be chosen behind a veil of ignorance; in the original position one does not know what talents, what gender what race or intelligence one will be endowed with; hence Rawls argue that fairness will govern society.

One supposes in this situation that eugenics would be ruled out; for after the veil is removed perhaps you find that one is in a category in which non-existence is prescribed, for you're not of the best genetic stock.

Now Rawls writes just prior to your extract:

I have assumed so far that the distribution of natural assets is a fact of nature and that no attempt is made to change it, or even to take it into account.

Up until this point Rawls had analysed the institutions of society and not individuals; he will now go on to discuss Justice for inividuals but before doing so he commits himself to not discussing the 'natural assets' - that is the talents of a man - seeing them fixed; he won't discuss in depth the possibility of change; this of course is known as Eugenics, and Rawls will have known its implication in the Holocaust; and this is the reason for his silence; his intellectual honesty pushes him to note however that:

But to some extent this distribution is bound to be affected by the social system. A caste system, for example, tends to divide society into separate biological populations; while an open society encourages the widest genetic diversity

and also

In addition, it is possible to adopt eugenic policies, more or less explicit. I shall not consider questions of eugenics, confining myself throughout to the traditional concerns of social justice.

He affirms here, that post-holocaust questions such as these were not even possible to speculate on.

So the answer to your question is no; Rawls refuses to develop a theory of eugenics; he purely admits its possibility.

1
source | link

The original position is Rawls replacement of the (hypothetical) originary state of Mankind theorised in social contract theory - the state of nature, as by Hobbes; the principles that govern society are to be chosen behind a veil of ignorance; in the original position one does not know what talents, what gender what race or intelligence one will be endowed with; hence Rawls argue that fairness will govern society.

One supposes in this situation that eugenics would be ruled out; for after the veil is removed perhaps you find that one is in a category in which non-existence is prescribed, for you're not of the best genetic stock.

Now Rawls writes just prior to your extract:

I have assumed so far that the distribution of natural assets is a fact of nature and that no attempt is made to change it, or even to take it into account.

Up until this point Rawls had analysed the institutions of society and not individuals; he will now go on to discuss Justice for inividuals but before doing so he commits himself to not discussing the 'natural assets' - that is the talents of a man - seeing them fixed; he won't discuss in depth the possibility of change; this of course is known as Eugenics, and Rawls will have known its implication in the Holocaust; and this is the reason for his silence; his intellectual honesty pushes him to note however that:

But to some extent this distribution is bound to be affected by the social system. A caste system, for example, tends to divide society into separate biological populations; while an open society encourages the widest genetic diversity

and also

In addition, it is possible to adopt eugenic policies, more or less explicit. I shall not consider questions of eugenics, confining myself throughout to the traditional concerns of social justice.

He affirms here, that post-holocaust questions such as these were not even possible to speculate on.