Answer the following questions on Rawls and Berlin

Participantes: Claudia Bellver, Alejandra Pérez, Álvaro Romero, Lucía Mauri y Laura
Vieco.
- In Rawls' text, which are the main contrasts between the right and the good?
- Why does Rawls reject the concept of "moral desert" and instead accept the idea of
"legitimate expectations"?
- Define the concepts of "negative" and "positive" freedom.
- What would be the limit of democracy according to Mill?
- What is Berlin's critique of "perfectionism" of?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
1. In Rawls' text, which are the main contrasts between the right and the good?

The “right” is the set of universal considerations that determine society. It

should be defined under the veil of ignorance, considering all society as “equal”.
The “right” is accepted for everyone and it must be followed to achieve the
good. Inside the boundaries of what’s right, individuals choose what is good.

→ determined, universal, from the veil of ignorance, chosen in agreement (in

original position). prior to good,

The good is the goal, what we have to achieve, the desires are different for each
individual. That’s why here, we can take into consideration the background and
personal circumstances of each person, and it can change with time. Because it
is individual, we cannot talk about the “common good”. His idea of the “good” is
undetermined. The important thing for Rawls is the “me”, the individual.

→ undetermined, individual/particular, from individual, never decided

(change all the time)

3 CONTRASTS →

● RIGHT → CHOSEN → UNIVERSAL → DETERMINED

● PRINCIPLES OF GOOD → NEVER DECIDED →
INDIVIDUAL/PARTICULAR → UNDERDETERMINATION → it changes
all the time.

Right Good

Determined Undetermined
 Universal Individual/Particular

From individual From veil of ignorance

Chose in an agreement Never decided

habría que simplificarla para el exámen, está ¿“muy bien articulada”?

2. Why does Rawls reject the concept of "moral desert" and instead accept the
idea of "legitimate expectations"

“Moral Desert” is what you should get based on your personal and natural
merits (being intelligent, rich, white…). For Rawls this is not just in terms of
fairness, and he argued that distribution should be based on justice in order to
balance the different situations of individuals. He is against meritocracy
because it is an unjust situation.

“Legitimate expectations” are what you expect from a social arrangement, once
you set the principles of justice. The idea of virtue is based on justice. This is
what represents justice best, because it should be decided with the veil of
ignorance, in a way that we would be able to have the same possibilities. Just
situation.

3. Define the concepts of "negative" and "positive" freedom.

Negative Freedom: external factor for which a subject is controlled by other
subjects. For Berlin and Liberals, the goal is to have the most negative freedom
possible, because they believe that each individual should be able to decide
what is good for them, and states shouldn’t determine it, they should only
protect the individuals (their goals, ends and rule of themselves) and their non-
interference (with laws).

Positive freedom: internal factors that affect the autonomy of each individual. It
takes into account that individuals should be “controlled” by a major force,
meaning that they have their individual rights that should be protected, but that
we should try to reach a common good, a higher goal, in which the individual
would choose it’s highest self, and so, be more free, even if it had to give up
some of their individualism.
4. What would be the limit of democracy according to Mill?

“Natural rights” should be the limit to democracy, the line that any government
mustn't be able to surpass. We should have a non-interference area (private
life) separated from the public sphere, in order to preserve our human essence.

5. What does consist Berlin's critique of "perfectionism" of?

For this author, a complete harmony between the different human values is not
achievable, as clashes between them are inevitable. Therefore, pluralism is
defended by Berlin as the thought of just one value reigning over others is not
possible. Each of us will give more importance to the values that we consider
the most vital to us.