What if you owned your own country...?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Interesting. Those are the grounds on which I'd create biology based laws in my state. Women would make far better decisions than children or the mentally handicapped, but I don't see them as psychologically equipped for leadership (generally speaking) in the same way as men are. So my argument is made on the same grounds as yours.

No it's not. You have yet to provide a shred of real evidence that women are less able at making leadership decisions than men.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

No it's not. You have yet to provide a shred of real evidence that women are less able at making leadership decisions than men.

I can prove right now that most women are mentally weak.

They marry men.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

I probably base it on John Rawls's "Theory of Justice", which pretty much single-handedly revived political philosophy in the post-WWII era.

He basically does what we've been doing here- you get to make up any society you want, but then he introduces the idea of the Veil of Ignorance.
You will be assigned totally at random to any position in your society, without prior knowledge of your race, sex, religion, social position or your own intelligence, talents or personality.

So, if you design a Nazi state- hey, you might be a Jew or Slav. If you set up a Communist state, you might be born with that prickly individualism that winds you up in a labour camp.

That sounds suspiciously to me as though your answer as to standard is no answer. I'd want my state in power no matter what my position in the society was, because I believe my state is best for all. So I'd check out according to Rawls. Lots of other people would create ideal states that completely vary, because they have different ideas about what the ideal state is. The differences between them can be enormous, and they all check out according to Rawls. So Rawls' standard doesn't look to me as though it's a standard at all- it seems to be just the statement that people should choose for themselves what they think best.

There is good in Rawls' idea, for sure. It follows the Golden Rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." But for people to follow the Golden Rule properly they really need the Holy Spirit's guidance. Many drug addicts are also drug distributors. They'd want people to offer them drugs, and they're kindly offering other people drugs. Or one stupid kindly person might encourage a friend to have unprotected sex because he feels it would be funner for both. Many people like things that are bad for them and would pass those things on to other people because they feel those acts are kindness, good or fine. Their consciences tell them that they're doing what's best for people, even though they are damaging others (and often enough themselves too) badly.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Or, in your case, you have a greater than 50% chance of ending up a member of a group with inferior rights, without a voice in how your life is run.

I think I would rather be a woman in that society than a woman in this. Of course one could argue that having failed to personally experience my own country ideal, I don't know what I'm talking about. This is my personal view right now of what I'd prefer.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I can prove right now that most women are mentally weak.

I thought we did that to ensure our power over them?

[Nurvingiel]