3 ms·

So for a specific example, in a world in which (say) 50% of people earn a dollar a day, and 50% a hundred dollars a day, and we are judging two potential polici

by mrwh 4y ago

So for a specific example, in a world in which (say) 50% of people earn a dollar a day, and 50% a hundred dollars a day, and we are judging two potential policies: 1), that reduces the number of people on a dollar a day to 25%, so that now 75% of people earn a hundred dollars a day; or 2) that means that no one is an a dollar a day, but that everyone is now on 50 dollars a day. Rawls would say go to option 2, where plenty of people are worse off, but now no one is terribly off. Is that a fair example? Net, the situation is worse; but now no one is destitute.

guerrilla 4y ago
> Net, the situation is worse; but now no one is destitute. How do you measure this? I think if you could measure subjective suffering, the situation may be better. Did you assume that people needed the extra $50 for something?
wyager 4y ago
Rawls would definitely pick the second option, but utilitarianism may or may not favor the first option (depends e.g. on dollar-utility mapping).
mrwh 4y ago
To be clear, personally I think a world in which everyone has less but no one has none is, on a moral level, a better world. If this is a fair example of Rawls' thought, then I'm with Rawls, and am not a utilitarian.
throwaway8582 4y ago
Sure, the values you picked for your example make the Minimax strategy look reasonable. You can just as easily choose values which make it look silly: 1) 1% of people earn $1 per day, and 99% of people earn $100 per day 2) Everyone earns $1.01 per day I think most people, myself included, would take their chances with the first option. The Veil of Ignorance is a useful thought experiment, but I don't think many people would consider a simple Minimax algorithm to be reasonable, and would take into account the well-being of the average person as well.

3 ms·

So for a specific example, in a world in which (say) 50% of people earn a dollar a day, and 50% a hundred dollars a day, and we are judging two potential polici

by mrwh 4y ago

guerrilla 4y ago
> Net, the situation is worse; but now no one is destitute. How do you measure this? I think if you could measure subjective suffering, the situation may be better. Did you assume that people needed the extra $50 for something?
wyager 4y ago
Rawls would definitely pick the second option, but utilitarianism may or may not favor the first option (depends e.g. on dollar-utility mapping).
mrwh 4y ago
To be clear, personally I think a world in which everyone has less but no one has none is, on a moral level, a better world. If this is a fair example of Rawls' thought, then I'm with Rawls, and am not a utilitarian.
throwaway8582 4y ago
Sure, the values you picked for your example make the Minimax strategy look reasonable. You can just as easily choose values which make it look silly: 1) 1% of people earn $1 per day, and 99% of people earn $100 per day 2) Everyone earns $1.01 per day I think most people, myself included, would take their chances with the first option. The Veil of Ignorance is a useful thought experiment, but I don't think many people would consider a simple Minimax algorithm to be reasonable, and would take into account the well-being of the average person as well.