4 ms·
The Veil seems nice and useful in theory. But someone wrote once (don’t remember who) that people who advocate for it still end up defending the liberal status
by avgcorrection 4y ago
The Veil seems nice and useful in theory. But someone wrote once (don’t remember who) that people who advocate for it still end up defending the liberal status quo, where the lottery of life still plays a big part.
- whimsicalism 4y agoI consider myself a socialist-leaning individual who favors the abolition of large portions of inherited wealth and I am very sympathetic to Rawls' arguments. I think you are reasoning backwards (from the preferred social/political outcome, rather than starting with the ethical principles that make one social/political outcome preferred over another).
- avgcorrection 4y agoWhy?
- whimsicalism 4y agoBecause you are saying that Rawls' argument is flawed because the people who believe it tend to support the liberal status quo, supposing apriori that the liberal status quo is bad and then reasoning that therefore Rawls' arguments must be bad if they provide some ethical mooring for that status quo.
- avgcorrection 4y agoNot a priori. A posteori the lottery of life plays a big part in liberal praxis. Dunno why my reasoning is “backwards”. Politics from first principles is fruitless and I don’t intend to play that game. But he can play it if he wishes.
- routerl 4y agoThere's a lot more to say there. For instance, many[0] have argued that the things Rawls places behind the veil are precisely the things that make us human, and ignoring them to make a procedural argument therefore begs the question: his conclusion (i.e. liberal democracy) is built-in to the premises. Then there are purely distributive arguments: if everyone wants to pay a bunch of money to go see Lewis Hamilton race, thereby enriching Lewis and producing an unequal distribution of goods, can we reasonably say this situation is unjust?[1] The literature on replies to Rawls is extremely rich, and Rawls himself went on to respond to critics and amend his views in 1993's Political Liberalism. The influence of his earlier work has been longer lived in the public mind than in his own. [0] Usually communitarians, especially Charles Taylor. [1] This is a variation of Robert Nozick's "Wilt Chamberlain argument", updated to use my preferred sports star.
- nicoburns 4y ago> if everyone wants to pay a bunch of money to go see Lewis Hamilton race, thereby enriching Lewis and producing an unequal distribution of goods, can we reasonably say this situation is unjust? I think we can. The individuals involved in the transaction all consent to it, but they are not the only ones affected. Lewis Hamilton being rich (beyond a certain level) has a detrimental affect on all in society as it undermines the market system we rely on to drive our economy towards productive ends.
- namlem 4y agoI don't see why Lewis Hamilton being rich has a detrimental effect on society. After all, it's likely that his wealth is being stored as investments which are providing capital and liquidity to productive firms. I suppose hoarding cash or gold would be detrimental though.
- routerl 4y agoHe hoards cars, predictably.
- avgcorrection 4y agoWhat can I say. A Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article I am not.
- TheCoelacanth 4y agoThis seems to me like a mis-characterization of the Veil of Ignorance idea. An unequal distribution of goods is not, per se, unjust. It merely needs to be justified on the basis that it makes everyone collectively better off, not on the basis that someone deserves more goods for being born into better circumstances. Some degree of unequal distribution is probably justified because it is necessary to incentivize people born with the potential for running fast to put in the work necessary to achieve that potential.
- namlem 4y agoIn the best liberal democratic countries of the present day, even being born poor is usually a pretty decent existence. I don't know if this is really a problem.