8 ms·
Not sure that holds. If laws are made behind the veil, then, by definition, they are neutral to the worst off and the best off. Edit: lots of talk about "if"
by LightG 5y ago
Not sure that holds.
If laws are made behind the veil, then, by definition, they are neutral to the worst off and the best off.
Edit: lots of talk about "if" and "best" and "worst" below. I don't think they're the point. It's about right and wrong regardless of if / best / worst. Sure people have agendas, the aim (which may sometimes / often fail) is to work beyond those agendas.
For me Rawls is a goal, not a fact.
- notahacker 5y agoThat's actually the more specific criticism of Rawls: he argues behind the veil of ignorance people generally would promote the interests of the worst off above all else, and critics (including those who think the veil of ignorance is a great concept) disagree with this conclusion (which depends on an additional assumption we are extremely risk averse)
- jonathanstrange 5y agoThis critique comes from utilitarians like Harsanyi and misses Rawls's point. (He's not a utilitarian anyway.) You can be extremely risk prone and nevertheless come to the conclusion that society ought to help you in the unlikely event that you have to endure extreme hardships. There is a difference between personal risk taking behaviour and the more abstract, general considerations behind the veil of ignorance.
- nanis 5y ago> If laws are made behind the veil IF The laws we live with are never made behind the veil. Relatedly, I have done some classroom experiments where the laws were indeed made behind the veil. Students overwhelmingly chose minimum guaranteed income from experiment to equalizing everyone's incomes (which is what is required by maximizing the preferences of the worst off) from the experiment before the task and their specific earning potentials were revealed.
- rrivers 5y agoLaws can never be neutral. They always direct behaviors and relationships towards specific directions.