4 ms·

For a much more critical take on Rawls, see Michael Huemer's "John Rawls is an Awful Reasoner" [0] Huemer is definitely writing in a polemical style that might

For a much more critical take on Rawls, see Michael Huemer's "John Rawls is an Awful Reasoner" [0] Huemer is definitely writing in a polemical style that might turn some folks off, but I think the basic point -- that Rawls contorts himself to avoid a framework that just boils down to 'maximize utility' -- is more or less on point. [0] https://fakenous.net/?p=1824 https://fakenous.net/?p=1824

guerrilla 4y ago
> that Rawls contorts himself to avoid a framework that just boils down to 'maximize utility' -- is more or less on point. It clearly doesn't though and is specifically constructed to avoid overfeeding utility monsters.
slaymaker1907 4y ago
This is a horrible take. Huemer dismisses the risk way too quickly despite risk being a tremendous, possibly most important, concern in microeconomics. The goal is still to maximize utility, but subject to certain constraints within a certain level of risk tolerance. I'm not sure why this would be so controversial within the realm of ethics when it is widely accepted in economics. Maximin is also pretty widely accepted in software engineering (though modified to use percentiles) since the 99th percentile response time is much more important than the average response time.
notahacker 4y ago
Id argue the framework is more interesting than Rawls' conclusion. I don't agree with Rawls that it tends to imply maximin (most humans aren't that risk averse) but it doesn't imply maximising expected utility either (it's pretty rational to prefer 'levelling down' to an incredibly unequal society with a low chance of elite status). And whilst the implied risk of the "veil of ignorance" is a hypothetical thing (as are many utilitarian arguments and arguments against utilitarianism) it underlines the fact humans reason differently about value when downside risks are significant.

guerrilla 4y ago

> that Rawls contorts himself to avoid a framework that just boils down to 'maximize utility' -- is more or less on point. It clearly doesn't though and is specifically constructed to avoid overfeeding utility monsters.

slaymaker1907 4y ago

This is a horrible take. Huemer dismisses the risk way too quickly despite risk being a tremendous, possibly most important, concern in microeconomics. The goal is still to maximize utility, but subject to certain constraints within a certain level of risk tolerance. I'm not sure why this would be so controversial within the realm of ethics when it is widely accepted in economics. Maximin is also pretty widely accepted in software engineering (though modified to use percentiles) since the 99th percentile response time is much more important than the average response time.

notahacker 4y ago

Id argue the framework is more interesting than Rawls' conclusion. I don't agree with Rawls that it tends to imply maximin (most humans aren't that risk averse) but it doesn't imply maximising expected utility either (it's pretty rational to prefer 'levelling down' to an incredibly unequal society with a low chance of elite status). And whilst the implied risk of the "veil of ignorance" is a hypothetical thing (as are many utilitarian arguments and arguments against utilitarianism) it underlines the fact humans reason differently about value when downside risks are significant.