If we evaluate viewpoints using the veil of ignorance and a thorough analysis of the facts, we will more easily identify the root causes of disagreements. We will also be forced to focus our conversations around ethical considerations and honest dialogue.
More than 40 years after he published his seminal work A Theory of Justice, the debate continues about the logic and desirability of subscribing to his worldview. We need debate no longer: we should all be Rawlsians now.
Eric Miller and I have been debating religion and politics since middle school. Today, he's a writer and professor at Bloomsburg University, while I'm still shooting NERF arrows at his head. Obviously, it was time to take our show on the road.
The President has announced that he wants to tackle inequality and the lack of upward mobility for poor Americans. He has many ideas for doing so, and many involve redistribution. But he smartly avoids mentioning the "R" word.
Without a seismic change in values that venerates historical cultures of excellence in conjunction with a celebration of scientific, professional, and technical achievement, there can be no restoration of the humanities.
If we are to rely on grades at all we should rely on more than a single signal about performance. Even if we adopt John Rawls's worldview, we will send up with Ryan Lochtes who are great but not superlative. How we set up grades reflects much more.
The healthcare debate sadly shows that in this country we are unable to get beyond a "what's in it for me" mentality that limits and diminishes us as a nation. But perhaps I just need to get with the program.