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

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.