6 ms·
Rawls have a core problem that his "veil" theory, though it is good, is making an idea of "justice" more "fairness" than anything else. There exist principles I
by da_big_ghey 5y ago
Rawls have a core problem that his "veil" theory, though it is good, is making an idea of "justice" more "fairness" than anything else. There exist principles I would advocate from behind these veil that would be in most likelihood disfavorable against me. Indeed, Rawls write his principles as "Justice as Fairness" for a reason.
- unixhero 5y agoI am trying to learn here. Is it problematic that the veil of ignorance causes fairness in a justice process?
- da_big_ghey 5y agoMy points are that fairness is not justice. Fairness having some measure of equal distribution, or at least minimum goods. Justice I call more like Nozick, that each have property from own earnings.
- handrous 5y agoI think of it more as minimizing the worst harm a system is causing—the human cost of the best the system delivers. The Veil discourages one from letting those get too out-of-whack.
- specialist 5y agoMakes perfect sense to me. A group can only move as fast as its slowest member. h/t Eli Goldratt, Heather McGhee.
- handrous 5y agoI was thinking more along the lines of "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" (Le Guin). One person tortured for their entire life, non-stop, to keep an entire city of people basically content? A behind-the-veil designer of systems might be OK with that. Maybe. Half of the city so-tortured, so the rest can live not just content lives, but like billionaires? The designer will almost certainly ask to tweak things to modify that deal. Half the city lives alright, but kinda poor, and the other half like billionaires? The designer might take that one. It's about odds and exactly how bad the worst case is.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jonnycomputer 5y agoCan you delineate the difference you see between justice and fairness here that you think is important?