Sounds like you're saying we shouldn't bother trying. > In this situation, though, what's medicine to one is poison to the other. I can think of times in my li

Sounds like you're saying we shouldn't bother trying. > In this situation, though, what's medicine to one is poison to the other. I can think of times in my life where each view was helpful and warranted, even if they're hard to reconcile with each other. Moral philosopher John Rawls's uses the concepts of original position and veil of ignorance for a thought experiment that is the only fair basis for making decisions about moral principles and how society should be structured. You can think of it as "What we'd all decide for the world if each of us did not know ahead of time which circumstance we'd be born into". https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/john-rawls-and-the-veil-of-ignorance/ https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/joh... > The Veil is meant to ensure that people’s concern for their personal benefit could translate into a set of arrangements that were fair for everyone, assuming that they had to stick to those choices once the Veil of Ignorance ‘lifts’, and they are given full information again. > One set of facts hidden from you behind the Veil are what we might call ‘demographic’ facts. You do not know your gender, race, wealth, or facts about your personal strengths and weaknesses, such as their intelligence or physical prowess. Rawls thought these facts are morally arbitrary: individuals do not earn or deserve these features, but simply have them by luck. As such, they do not deserve any benefits or harms that come from them. By removing knowledge of the natural inequalities that give people unfair advantages, it becomes irrational to choose principles that discriminate against any particular group. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position