4 ms·
> It is never moral and often unwise to support a system you would not support if you did not have a favorable position within it. Is this an intentional refer
by morganherlocker 13y ago
> It is never moral and often unwise to support a system you would not support if you did not have a favorable position within it.
Is this an intentional reference to John Rawls' concept of the 'veil of ignorance' laid out in Theory of Justice? If not, you would definitely enjoy the ideas in the book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
- npsimons 13y agoExactly what I was reminded of; Rawl's theory of justice, paraphrased: the only just system/rules are ones you wouldn't have a problem being on either side of.
- snogglethorpe 13y agoIsn't it just Kant's "categorical imperative"...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
- derleth 13y agoThe categorical imperative is strictly weaker: It's possible to use the veil of ignorance to argue against positions nobody is insisting must be made universal. For example, "In this house, you always clean up": The categorical imperative only works to argue against this if you try to find a way to apply it to every household; the veil of ignorance works simply by forcing the members of the household to be ignorant about who 'you' refers to.