The veil of ignorance

[TangerineSteve17]

John Rawls, <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance</a>

A lovely. obvious concept. As relevant today as when it was coined. Fairness.

This thought experiment underpins much of the desirable continuation on the human race. Nice and tiddly, nice and easy. No rush. Gentle social changes or *gasp* left wingedness to be a progressive, global union of a kind. Slow continual adaptation.

It can be knocked of course, but it is the ideal as I see it.

Anyone wish to challenge it? Cos if you can't then we're all equal, as is plainly palpable. No-one is truly your superior. Nothing enters the equation.

Revere the talented/educated leader-types. But they rise and fall to this principal.

Consequences or duty? It is getting less blurred as we continue.

 

[DelToro]

It is an intriguing concept which would make for a good discussion.

It is also an issue about odds ans betting given that it is about maximising your outcome from a range of options.

 

[BlueBearBoots]

Interesting concept and I have been trying to think of one reason it wouldn't work if politicians adopted this way of thinking - I cant

 

[cibaman]

Interesting concept and I have been trying to think of one reason it wouldn't work if politicians adopted this way of thinking - I cant

Wouldnt it lead to a massively over cautious, risk averse approach?

eg i might be the victim of a fatal car crash so lets ban all cars?

 

[BlueBearBoots]

Interesting concept and I have been trying to think of one reason it wouldn't work if politicians adopted this way of thinking - I cant

Wouldnt it lead to a massively over cautious, risk averse approach?

eg i might be the victim of a fatal car crash so lets ban all cars?

Very true - let's not increase tax on high earners because I might be one

 

[roaminblue]

Didn't Nozick do all of that for us?

In seriousness, Its a thought experiment becuase it can never be anything but. Information economics does exist, prior historical knowledge informs, one is unable to completely disguise themselves or their abilities. Even just the first few weeks of a new society will inform upon an individual's skill-set. Innate abilities to control and manipulate would soon become apparent, the game theorist that is there in all of us would come to the forefront.

Maybe its an ideal, but it is still just a thought experiment.

 

[che_don_john]

Interesting concept and I have been trying to think of one reason it wouldn't work if politicians adopted this way of thinking - I cant

The most common response to Rawls comes from communitarian thinkers like Sandel and Kymlicka. It's pretty long-winded stuff (and not a critique of Rawl's that I fully agree with, just putting it out there), but in summary:

- Concepts of individualism and rights are 'a bad sociology', for they don't provide a realistic understanding of social cohesion. Man is a socio-political animal, and is not self-sufficient alone.

- Rawls’ theory holds a concept of the 'encumbered self' that is too individualistic and neglects the fact that people tend to be defined or constituted by various communal entities, such as the family or traditions. Politics should therefore focus more on social and communal entities, rather than on securing the conditions for individuals to exercise autonomy.

- Rawls’ 'original position' imagines the self as being apart from and prior to its purposes and involvements. A more comprehensive theory could understand people in terms of their social relationships and Rawls ignores the communal ties of the 'encumbered self'.

- Rawls presents the idea of a self who understands justice and can act from the public conception of justice as fairness. Communitarians counter-claim that 'the good' is in fact conceived by a community and determines a community’s way of life.

- Rawls offers little evidence that his particular conception of the person is at all deeply rooted in the public culture of liberal societies in the first place

- Rawls’ political liberalism and its capacity to reach consensus depends on the exclusion of ‘divisive’ issues. But if the political sphere is an arena of conflicts, and since Rawls relegates conflicts to the private sphere, the political becomes an arena of consensus, and therefore his ‘well-ordered society’ rests on the elimination of the very idea of the political. In other words, it abolishes politics.

It's been a while and I didn't really study Rawls too much, but if you want to ready more from his critics try Mouffe, Kymlicka, Sandel and Walzer.

 

[bondsman]

Rawls argument is undermined by claiming that you're behind the veil but possess the thin theory of the good. That thin theory is not so thin as it includes abstract concepts like fairness and justice. Also you could argue that justice only makes sense in a legal context so the original position would not allow one to possess an idea of justice. And the goods Rawls argues we would be aware of are all part of liberal ideology. Marx for one would probably take issue with it.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

I don't remember starting this thread. Anyway, yeah it's a nice thought experiment. Be nice if people thought about it a bit more despite it's impracticality. I haven't read the book, not sure what my aim was with this. Good post Che.

Maybe when eugenics kicks off big time or genetic engineering in the distant future (I think it might) then the impossible fair start might become a little more realized in some way.