Mindblown: a blog about philosophy.

[…] between claims of desert and claims of need in the first place? Why can’t need be one of many desert-bases alongside […] LikeLike

This is just a passing thought that I’ve been meaning to blog for awhile–almost apropos of nothing. It isn’t a natural continuation of any topic we’ve discussed so far in our conversations on Sher’s Desert, but bears an obvious relation to the topic of desert in general. It’s common to contrast claims of desert sharply from…

My main going interpretation of Rawls is quite different from Sher’s (and at least most others that I have come across). I interpret Rawls as specifically targeting the putative desert-basis (the process of achievement) for people deserving what …

In reply to Irfan Khawaja. Here’s your second point: The second is that Sher’s second Rawlsian premise just seems to me pretty weak on its face. I don’t think that Louis XIV would have agreed that he didn’t deserve to be king just because he inh…

In reply to David Potts. Your first comment is that Rawls’s view expresses a WEIRD idea: The first is that it seems to be a very WEIRD idea. WEIRD psychology emphasizes the personal attributes of individuals in the explanation of their behavior …

In reply to David Potts. Some of your points came up in our Zoom discussion. Of the four of us in the Zoom discussion, I think it’s fair to say that I am the one whose views are most sympathetic to Rawls’s. The three other participants made…

In reply to boydstun. I think Rawls’s response to both scenarios is easy to figure out, and follows straightforwardly from what he says. To the extent that risk-aversion, extraversion, and introversion are traits that are a part of our make-up th…