![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have been reading ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ginmar's journal recently, and it got me thinking about how each person's freedom is restricted by everyone else's. Oddly enough, a recent 'situation' I was in offered an example of this theory in action.
Some unspecified time ago, I was working on a school assignment. Specifically, I was working on rewriting the paper I turned in two weeks ago, but that's not important. And I was working on this assignment in a (semi-)public place, i.e. someplace which other people shared the right to occupy. And, in this case, there were other people, sharing the right to occupy the space.
Here's the question: How much right did I have to restrict what they could do there?
Certainly, they had the right to be there while I tried to write. Likewise, I had the right to be there and try to write. I will be the first to admit that there are times when I wouldn't have that right, but in this particular instance, I had a strong claim to it. And so did they. No argument there.
Certainly they had the right to use their laptops there. Similarly, I had the right to use mine. Certainly, they had the right to read the newspaper there. Similarly, I had the right to read my class notes.
Certainly they had the right to play their music there ... no, wait!
When you reach the issue of the music, a new problem arises. Or rather, an old problem becomes rather more severe. That problem is: I was writing! How much right did they have to interfere with my trying to write? How much right did I have to interfere with them trying to play music?
I won't disguise my opinion. I believe that I had the right to keep either and both of them from playing their music out lout, and that's it.
Why do I claim this right? I argue that it is a reasonable compromise. To play the music out loud (and I emphasize that qualifier for a reason) is to make the space have music playing in it. We both have control over the space, so we both have control over whether music should be playing in it.
Now, at this point we're even, or I'm behind. If they both want the music playing, I lose. But there's another factor.
I have no control over what music they listen to. If either of the, want to play music on their headphones, they can. Therefore, if they want to listen to their music, and I want (relative) silence while I work, we can have both.
How reasonable a compromise is this? I believe it to be eminently reasonable, for two reasons. The first is the obvious: the fact that they would not be severely inconvenienced by submitting to the compromise. The second is much more sophisticated: an appeal to John Rawls.
I first heard of Rawls Game (that is the name that was given to it) a year or so ago, at a community college philosophy club meeting. I heard of it again very recently; in fact, in the same class for which I was writing the paper. The idea is fairly simple; it is a thought-experiment.
Imagine that a group of people is brought together to write the constitution for a new country. However, when they finished, they would be randomly assigned their positions in the society they created. That is, when they are writing the rules of society, they don't know who they will be afterward. This hiding of their future roles is called the "veil of ignorance".
Why is this concept so useful? Because any law that you make that involves more than one person, is a law you have to make not knowing which person you will be. That means that you won't want to make laws biased towards one person, or against another. If you made a law saying that every left-handed person in the country would have to be stoned to death, you could end up stoned to death!
Now, how does a thought experiment about constitutional law apply to my situation, above? Bring in the veil of ignorance! If I don't know which person I will be – the writer or the music-listener – then I have to come up with something I can accept, either way. I can't say, "I have the right to blare out my music, period, and I have the right to silence while I work, period!" I have to come up with what both people will do, before I know which one is me. I have to be fair.
And that's what mutual freedoms are all about.
ginmar's journal recently, and it got me thinking about how each person's freedom is restricted by everyone else's. Oddly enough, a recent 'situation' I was in offered an example of this theory in action.Some unspecified time ago, I was working on a school assignment. Specifically, I was working on rewriting the paper I turned in two weeks ago, but that's not important. And I was working on this assignment in a (semi-)public place, i.e. someplace which other people shared the right to occupy. And, in this case, there were other people, sharing the right to occupy the space.
Here's the question: How much right did I have to restrict what they could do there?
Certainly, they had the right to be there while I tried to write. Likewise, I had the right to be there and try to write. I will be the first to admit that there are times when I wouldn't have that right, but in this particular instance, I had a strong claim to it. And so did they. No argument there.
Certainly they had the right to use their laptops there. Similarly, I had the right to use mine. Certainly, they had the right to read the newspaper there. Similarly, I had the right to read my class notes.
Certainly they had the right to play their music there ... no, wait!
When you reach the issue of the music, a new problem arises. Or rather, an old problem becomes rather more severe. That problem is: I was writing! How much right did they have to interfere with my trying to write? How much right did I have to interfere with them trying to play music?
I won't disguise my opinion. I believe that I had the right to keep either and both of them from playing their music out lout, and that's it.
Why do I claim this right? I argue that it is a reasonable compromise. To play the music out loud (and I emphasize that qualifier for a reason) is to make the space have music playing in it. We both have control over the space, so we both have control over whether music should be playing in it.
Now, at this point we're even, or I'm behind. If they both want the music playing, I lose. But there's another factor.
I have no control over what music they listen to. If either of the, want to play music on their headphones, they can. Therefore, if they want to listen to their music, and I want (relative) silence while I work, we can have both.
How reasonable a compromise is this? I believe it to be eminently reasonable, for two reasons. The first is the obvious: the fact that they would not be severely inconvenienced by submitting to the compromise. The second is much more sophisticated: an appeal to John Rawls.
I first heard of Rawls Game (that is the name that was given to it) a year or so ago, at a community college philosophy club meeting. I heard of it again very recently; in fact, in the same class for which I was writing the paper. The idea is fairly simple; it is a thought-experiment.
Imagine that a group of people is brought together to write the constitution for a new country. However, when they finished, they would be randomly assigned their positions in the society they created. That is, when they are writing the rules of society, they don't know who they will be afterward. This hiding of their future roles is called the "veil of ignorance".
Why is this concept so useful? Because any law that you make that involves more than one person, is a law you have to make not knowing which person you will be. That means that you won't want to make laws biased towards one person, or against another. If you made a law saying that every left-handed person in the country would have to be stoned to death, you could end up stoned to death!
Now, how does a thought experiment about constitutional law apply to my situation, above? Bring in the veil of ignorance! If I don't know which person I will be – the writer or the music-listener – then I have to come up with something I can accept, either way. I can't say, "I have the right to blare out my music, period, and I have the right to silence while I work, period!" I have to come up with what both people will do, before I know which one is me. I have to be fair.
And that's what mutual freedoms are all about.
