3 ms·
I prefer the way my ethics professor explained what I believe is the same, or at least similar, topic. Imagine you are not born yet. You do not yet exist. You
by xboxnolifes 4y ago
I prefer the way my ethics professor explained what I believe is the same, or at least similar, topic.
Imagine you are not born yet. You do not yet exist. You can be born at any location, of any race, with any birth defect, of any gender, of any societal class. Now, what kind of societal structure would you like to exist if you had to be born into such world? Would you be ok with large wealth/social inequality if you could be born into the bottom rung? Or about survival of the fittest without collective support with the chance you might be born with a inhibiting birth defect?
There was a lot I didn't like about how that class was taught, but this thought experiment alone made it worth taking.
- haihaibye 4y agoIt depends on whether everyone will be born into the first and only generation or the random assignment to people has a time component as well. Much like how the strategies of prisoners dilemma change If you are playing an iterated game. For your birth defect example, consider 2 societies, where 1 bans cousin marriage and the other encourages it. In 50 years time the chance of being born with a birth defect is 5x higher in 1 than the other. That wouldn't matter for the first generation but imagine you will be born to a random generation between now and 1000 years from now. Which do you choose? Once you take into account time, then growth, social institutions and incentives come into play. You may prefer to bet on a much richer, healthier society that had a bit less equality or freedom in the past for a while.
- slavik81 4y agoIs there a reason to assume we will be born as a human being? In this hypothetical, I'm already asked to discard everything that makes me who I am. It seems like the logical extension would be to apply it to all life.