Philosophy

» redback - Pure Rawls

In response to Pure Rawls posted by pink101:
Hi spiritalk. Plainly, I don't know what people mean when they expect something from this thing called 'society' and the bigger the ask, the more it sounds unrealistic to me. People want to blame something and "society" is intangible in that context.
Is the simpler question to define society as it is or as it could be if only....? The 2 sentences you ask about, don't greatly add to my post.
"... Implicit in the meaning of society is that its members share some mutual concern or interest, a common objective or common characteristics."
By extension IMO, it is probably explicit in the meaning of 'society' that not all common concerns are met, interests, goals achieved by all, let alone the uncommon ones. And if the FBI did a profile on what 'common characteristics' mean, many would remain unidentified.
I think there are unrealistic expectations for many things. Being unfairly treated in the courts, in gaining medical treatment and in resolving whatever problems Christianism is perceived to cause...to name a few.
"I" might expect the doctor to do better for me but "we" expect society to do better in looking after the ill among us.
Pure Rawls is confusing.

"Is there ever a time it is right to make decisions for other people?"

YES if on behalf of other people and depending on the decision needed but your simple question seems to hide a complex question???

-- posted by redback