Originally posted by siam
View Post
Again, the crucial question is, if you are totally ignorant of your circumstances, into what kind of society would you want to be born? Restricting the choice to contemporary societies, would you choose Pakistan of France, not knowing if you were to be born a Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, woman, handicapped, gay, poor? For all of its faults, and I'm sure it has some, I would choose France.
2) If there is an intolerant theocracy (in theory) then there must also be a tolerant theocracy? If so, is it a better option to live in a tolerant theocracy than an intolerant non-theocracy? (China for example?)
3) Also, a point to consider is that Christianity has had a history of "theocracy"---Islam has not. Therefore, judgments of good/bad theocracy might be made within a "Christian" historical framework...but this does not necessarily apply to the Islamic historical framework....therefore it cannot be "irrespective of history" since this is part of our stories.
And Rawls was writing about political theory, or political philosophy. We're talking about modal positions, what one would choose under ideal conditions. Although we are all necessarily informed by history, we are not necessarily constrained by it as far as thought experiments of this kind.
4) de-establishment is an illusion because it simply replaces the "established" metaphysics for another one (secularism) that claims "universality" and superiority. Under such a metaphysic foundation, certain assumptions are laid such as definitions of justice, liberty, equality, human beings...etc upon which meta-ethics (or lack thereof) is justified.
Comment