Dissertation DNL philo

1) The main philosophical stated by Rawls is the following: in a society in which main people’s idea is ruled by tolerance, if a group appears, an intolerant group, should they be discriminated because of their different way of thinking, what goes on the opposite how their society works, or should they be treated as everybody in despite of the intolerance they show?

2) To my mind, Rawls, whatever he rather stands for, can use two main ideas: the principle of same treatment for everyone, so that even the intolerant would be accepted, or doing an exception at this for once, either to try and convince them to change their minds, or to banish them from the society.

On the one hand, to defend the intolerant, Rawls may have four main arguments. First of all, as stated in the excerpt, as long as they don’t become a threat to somebody. Indeed, if they are apart from the majority of the population, and that they stay together without being looking for any conflict, they can’t be touched, the tolerant won’t attack them. Then, in the name of tolerance itself, there shouldn’t be any kind of problem by letting people with other thoughts live. In a matter of logic, if almost everyone is tolerant, the main part of the population has to accept the minority, which thinks differently. Afterwards, let’s suppose that the intolerant would be perfectly nice people, they might be strictly intolerant but incredibly clever, useful and so…These intolerant would certainly be accepted by the tolerant, because it is perfectly how they are supposed to think. Finally, the tolerant could try to make them become tolerant too. In a way, it can be considered as some intolerance, because they don’t let the others think how they want, but if they achieved in it, everybody will become tolerant, it will have been a necessity.

On the other hand, if Rawls thinks that the intolerant think the wrong way, he can’t defend them, he will probably attacks them with three other ideas, not only the opposite of the previous ones. Firstly, the intolerant are, at the basement, not made to live the tolerant. Even with the only etymological meaning, they are divided by an appositive prefix. On one side, there are people living on a strong idea, which is the majority, and on the other side, the minority totally disagrees with this idea. The majority has to be the rules, so the intolerant part should be banished. Secondly, when there will be any conflict, it would certainly have been started by the intolerant, living on an opposition with the main moral principle, if a whole population has as the doctrine that everyone has to accept everyone else, no intolerant can be integrated, he will try to show his idea are worth, probably by force. Thirdly, a natural fear appears with the arrival of an opposant, even without knowing him. Although they are supposed to be tolerant with everybody, they can judge them while being gentle with them.

3) “They should not suppress it simply because the members of the intolerant sect could not complain were they to do so”

What Rawls tries to describe is that the intolerant sects, being a minority, would not be allowed to complain themselves for this new oppression. Though they are human beings, as the tolerant, so there is a liberty of thinking and so. Rawls says that they should not suppress it; he is talking about the two principles of justice. Everyone in this society they are free to think by themselves and to decide how they want to be judge by the principle.

“They can properly force the intolerant to respect the liberty of others”

Rawls say that the tolerant can force the intolerant to respect the liberty of others. He says that because in our society everyone can think by themselves so they have to respect the other’s thinking.

4) It seems to me that Rawls's position is both interesting and lame. Indeed, if one sticks strictly to the question of religious tolerance, on the one hand Rawls' philosophy contains a certain way of the principle of secularism. The first principle of justice is the principle of equal freedom for all who include freedom of conscience. The latter can not suffer any limitation - while Rawls admits that freedoms are limited, for example simply when there is direct democracy through representative democracy. This means that the state can not give any privilege to any conviction, religious or non religious. When he passes to the justification of the principles of justice, Rawls shows that are the principles that one would approve of being placed under the "veil of ignorance", that is to say in a situation where one ignores it. particular situation and its own advantages or disadvantages. Someone placed under this fictitious veil of ignorance would not know if he is a Christian, Mohammedan, or atheist. He seeks a legal system that guarantees

...