5 ms·

If your answers would be different with than they would be without this knowledge then please don't vote. Isn't this like table stakes for being a thoughtful p

If your answers would be different with than they would be without this knowledge then please don't vote. Isn't this like table stakes for being a thoughtful person who isn't a sociopath? The most influential thought experiment in contemporary philosophy is to not act like a toddler?

jjmarr 2y ago
I watched something based on this in my debate club, so this isn't my own original thought. There's a strong argument that the knowledge someone has from being disadvantaged contributes to their views on justice. The original position also incentivizes ignoring the rights of small groups of people since you likely aren't going to be a part of one. One also gets into issues like reparations for past injustices. Those benefit a small group of people at the cost of the many (hard to justify with the original position), but can still be a form of justice since we want to balance past wrongs.
- senderista 2y ago
  Right, the veil of ignorance AFAICT (Rawls may have addressed this somewhere) sidesteps the question of probability. Shouldn't you weight the interests of a group proportionally to the likelihood that you would have been born into such a group, i.e. by their relative population?
  - The_Colonel 2y ago
    That kinda depends on your subjective risk aversion/tolerance. I think the veil of ignorance is a great thought experiment everyone should think about, but there shouldn't be any prescribed way how to think about it.
- harimau777 2y ago
  While that's technically valid, it feels like it's going against the spirit of the "original position". That is to say, it seems to me that the original position isn't intended to literally say "run an optimization on the probability density function in order to maximize your expected happiness". Instead, it seems to me that it's intended to illustrate the idea that whatever rules society operates under need to work regardless of what your starting point in society is. Stated another way, while that argument is probably a valid way to "win" a competitive debate, it doesn't strike me as particularly useful for exploring the concept that Rawls is presenting.
  - jjmarr 2y ago
    It goes against the spirit of the thought experiment because it's an attack on that spirit. Abstractly, Rawls says society shouldn't be racially/ethnically/socioeconomically/etc prejudiced. The vast majority of people agree with this obviously. Concretely, he says this can be achieved by ignoring your racial/ethnic/socioeconomic/etc status. The claim is that the more you ignore your own lived experiences, the less you can use the knowledge that it gives you. Rawls also argued that people would maximize the minimum utility behind the veil of ignorance, as they wouldn't want to risk being a persecuted minority. This didn't come up during the debate, although it should've since it's why "whatever rules society operates under need to work regardless of what your starting point in society is".
s1artibartfast 2y ago
It is actually a pretty radical idea that isn't very widely accepted today. It is easy to agree with it if you are talking about some racial minority. Treating murderers or child rapists with the compassion you would want in their shoes is beyond most people. It also has a number of very easy criticisms that can be set against it
- bee_rider 2y ago
  If we don’t know going into this hypothetical what sort of person we’ll be, we can still play the odds and say we should lock up child rapists and murders for life. It is very unlikely we’ll be born as one, and letting them go free will allow them to harm multiple people…
  - _0ffh 2y ago
    That's a very relevant thing you bring up: The way we design our society changes not only the outomes for roles of certain fixed probabilities - it changes the probabilities as well. If you lock up the rapists and murderers, there's a lower chance your role will include being the victim of a rapist or murderer. You always have to consider all sides of every decision as well as higher order effects.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I was thinking more along the lines of compassion and rehabilitation. I think the numbers argument is a pretty different one than the original thought experiment.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
roenxi 2y ago
Most people - just going by observation - appear to advocate policies based on who they actually are rather than on abstract principles. You're going to have to live with them voting. Furthermore the argument that it is a bad idea isn't even strong. The veil of ignorance is powerful and interesting but voting is about different cultures negotiating to make decisions. That all but guarantees there will be different conceptions about what is fair that are not the veil of ignorance and those need to be respected. They aren't sociopaths, they just don't agree with you.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
mrkeen 2y ago
> Isn't this like table stakes for being a thoughtful person who isn't a sociopath? Not all thoughtful people come to the same conclusions, and it's nice to try to axiomatise these things anyway, so you have something to point at when trying to formulate new rules. For instance, non-toddlers understand the Golden Rule, which seems good enough on its surface, but on deeper reflection can let bad behaviour through. Hypothetically, I like bribes: I can pay others to change the rules in my favour. I also like receiving money for changing rules. So this passes the Golden Rule, but fails Kant's Categorical Imperative.

jjmarr 2y ago

I watched something based on this in my debate club, so this isn't my own original thought. There's a strong argument that the knowledge someone has from being disadvantaged contributes to their views on justice. The original position also incentivizes ignoring the rights of small groups of people since you likely aren't going to be a part of one. One also gets into issues like reparations for past injustices. Those benefit a small group of people at the cost of the many (hard to justify with the original position), but can still be a form of justice since we want to balance past wrongs.

senderista 2y ago
Right, the veil of ignorance AFAICT (Rawls may have addressed this somewhere) sidesteps the question of probability. Shouldn't you weight the interests of a group proportionally to the likelihood that you would have been born into such a group, i.e. by their relative population?
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  That kinda depends on your subjective risk aversion/tolerance. I think the veil of ignorance is a great thought experiment everyone should think about, but there shouldn't be any prescribed way how to think about it.
harimau777 2y ago
While that's technically valid, it feels like it's going against the spirit of the "original position". That is to say, it seems to me that the original position isn't intended to literally say "run an optimization on the probability density function in order to maximize your expected happiness". Instead, it seems to me that it's intended to illustrate the idea that whatever rules society operates under need to work regardless of what your starting point in society is. Stated another way, while that argument is probably a valid way to "win" a competitive debate, it doesn't strike me as particularly useful for exploring the concept that Rawls is presenting.
- jjmarr 2y ago
  It goes against the spirit of the thought experiment because it's an attack on that spirit. Abstractly, Rawls says society shouldn't be racially/ethnically/socioeconomically/etc prejudiced. The vast majority of people agree with this obviously. Concretely, he says this can be achieved by ignoring your racial/ethnic/socioeconomic/etc status. The claim is that the more you ignore your own lived experiences, the less you can use the knowledge that it gives you. Rawls also argued that people would maximize the minimum utility behind the veil of ignorance, as they wouldn't want to risk being a persecuted minority. This didn't come up during the debate, although it should've since it's why "whatever rules society operates under need to work regardless of what your starting point in society is".

s1artibartfast 2y ago

It is actually a pretty radical idea that isn't very widely accepted today. It is easy to agree with it if you are talking about some racial minority. Treating murderers or child rapists with the compassion you would want in their shoes is beyond most people. It also has a number of very easy criticisms that can be set against it

bee_rider 2y ago
If we don’t know going into this hypothetical what sort of person we’ll be, we can still play the odds and say we should lock up child rapists and murders for life. It is very unlikely we’ll be born as one, and letting them go free will allow them to harm multiple people…
- _0ffh 2y ago
  That's a very relevant thing you bring up: The way we design our society changes not only the outomes for roles of certain fixed probabilities - it changes the probabilities as well. If you lock up the rapists and murderers, there's a lower chance your role will include being the victim of a rapist or murderer. You always have to consider all sides of every decision as well as higher order effects.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I was thinking more along the lines of compassion and rehabilitation. I think the numbers argument is a pretty different one than the original thought experiment.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

roenxi 2y ago

Most people - just going by observation - appear to advocate policies based on who they actually are rather than on abstract principles. You're going to have to live with them voting. Furthermore the argument that it is a bad idea isn't even strong. The veil of ignorance is powerful and interesting but voting is about different cultures negotiating to make decisions. That all but guarantees there will be different conceptions about what is fair that are not the veil of ignorance and those need to be respected. They aren't sociopaths, they just don't agree with you.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

mrkeen 2y ago

> Isn't this like table stakes for being a thoughtful person who isn't a sociopath? Not all thoughtful people come to the same conclusions, and it's nice to try to axiomatise these things anyway, so you have something to point at when trying to formulate new rules. For instance, non-toddlers understand the Golden Rule, which seems good enough on its surface, but on deeper reflection can let bad behaviour through. Hypothetically, I like bribes: I can pay others to change the rules in my favour. I also like receiving money for changing rules. So this passes the Golden Rule, but fails Kant's Categorical Imperative.