3 ms·

I think one big problem with Rawls’s position is that it has no room for desert (as in, the idea that people can deserve their fates). His thought experiment wa

I think one big problem with Rawls’s position is that it has no room for desert (as in, the idea that people can deserve their fates). His thought experiment wants me to consider the risk that I be born a very bad man. But why should I want to design my society for the benefit of the dishonest, the slothful, and the wicked? I want a society designed for the benefit of the good, of the excellent, of the virtuous. We should of course have humanity and mercy for everyone.

lapcat 4y ago
> But why should I want to design my society for the benefit of the dishonest, the slothful, and the wicked? It's not designed to benefit them, it's designed to benefit the least fortunate. Put it this way: what's the "harm" of dishonesty? If a dishonest person ends up being the worst off in society, then dishonesty has no advantage. Can you even say in that case that dishonesty causes harm? Whereas if someone uses dishonesty to gain personal advantage, then that person is not the worst off in society, and so the society is not designed to benefit them. You might even say that the society is designed to benefit the victims of dishonesty, not the perpetrators.
whimsicalism 4y ago
Yes, Rawls' position is explicitly anti-'desert' and entitlement. I find his critique relatively compelling. Nothing about his position is saying that you must design a society specifically for the benefit of "the dishonest, the slothful, and the wicked," if such a design would be worse off under the difference principle. Indeed, many societies would benefit from punishing or disincentivizing such behavior. What Rawls critiques is the (Christian) notion that the slothful are apriori deserving of punishment or the hard-working apriori deserving of reward, if such a reward structure is not one that would benefit a society of free individuals.
dmead 4y ago
that is literally the point of the veil. you're not supposed to assume the worst about others, lest they also assume the worst about you.
- legalcorrection 4y ago
  It’s not assuming the worst. The whole point of the veil is that you don’t know the circumstances of your birth and what traits you are blessed or cursed with.

lapcat 4y ago

> But why should I want to design my society for the benefit of the dishonest, the slothful, and the wicked? It's not designed to benefit them, it's designed to benefit the least fortunate. Put it this way: what's the "harm" of dishonesty? If a dishonest person ends up being the worst off in society, then dishonesty has no advantage. Can you even say in that case that dishonesty causes harm? Whereas if someone uses dishonesty to gain personal advantage, then that person is not the worst off in society, and so the society is not designed to benefit them. You might even say that the society is designed to benefit the victims of dishonesty, not the perpetrators.

whimsicalism 4y ago

Yes, Rawls' position is explicitly anti-'desert' and entitlement. I find his critique relatively compelling. Nothing about his position is saying that you must design a society specifically for the benefit of "the dishonest, the slothful, and the wicked," if such a design would be worse off under the difference principle. Indeed, many societies would benefit from punishing or disincentivizing such behavior. What Rawls critiques is the (Christian) notion that the slothful are apriori deserving of punishment or the hard-working apriori deserving of reward, if such a reward structure is not one that would benefit a society of free individuals.

dmead 4y ago

that is literally the point of the veil. you're not supposed to assume the worst about others, lest they also assume the worst about you.

legalcorrection 4y ago
It’s not assuming the worst. The whole point of the veil is that you don’t know the circumstances of your birth and what traits you are blessed or cursed with.