Opinion of Rawls' A Theory of Justice (1971)

[LabourJersey]

Let's bring a little more Philosophy onto the board.

I read Rawls in college and it was very valuable. I very much like his attempt to reason Justice and provides a case for the distribution of wealth and goods from a liberal perspective.

But I don't find his original perspective to be particularly convincing, and not as convincing as Hobbes's or Locke's state of nature.

What are your thoughts?

[Antonio the Sixth]

One of the most profound works of moral and political philosophy. I encountered it a long time ago and it always stayed with me and guided me in understanding what a just society might look like. In many ways the veil of ignorance is a refinement on the golden rule and the categorical imperative, which avoids the well-known limitations of those maxims. I don't think it's entirely sufficient for a fully formed moral framework (as all liberal philosophy, it's much too abstract and formalistic in its treatment of individual preferences and desires), but it's a sounder foundation for one than you'll find in most places.

[Mopsus]

I’ve not read it, but my impression of the veil of ignorance is higher than my impression of the aforementioned categorical imperative, since it has to do with political philosophy, to which laws and maxims are appropriately suited. The idea that justice applies to interpersonal relations is terribly anachronistic.

[John Dule]

It's an interesting thought experiment that I think nonetheless fails to necessitate many of the conclusions Rawls and others draw from it. The point of the idea (to put it crudely) is to use individual self-interest to justify the welfare state. Here is how I see the problem with this line of reasoning:

Let's imagine a naturally gifted/intelligent individual performing the "Veil of Ignorance" thought experiment. You can imagine this person being a "Renaissance Man" or a "savant," but whatever stereotype of "genius" you choose, assume that this is someone who has been naturally skilled at intellectual pursuits for their entire life.

First, let's say this person performs one version of the Veil of Ignorance experiment: They imagine themselves as they are, but do not know the circumstances under which they will be born into the world. This intelligent person would probably be confident that they would be able to succeed regardless of their status at birth. They might not be able to succeed in any circumstance-- not, say, if they were born into slavery-- but a "gifted" person would probably be willing to tolerate more extreme inequities in the socioeconomic structure provided that the hierarchy is meritocratic. Someone unsure of their skills or intellect would almost certainly see things the other way.

But now let's take the Veil of Ignorance one step further. Instead of just saying that we don't know our social status at birth in this society, let's say that the veil also obscures other things about us-- our natural intelligence, our appearance, our race, our physical build and abilities-- things that are determined largely by genetic factors. The problem with expanding the thought experiment this way is that you are now asking the person to essentially imagine that they are someone else entirely. There's nothing wrong with that for philosophical purposes, but the point of the experiment is to use self-interest to justify an egalitarian society. This does not work if a person must ignore major elements of their own identity to perform the thought experiment. It's hard to see how something can be in "my best interest" when I have to imagine myself to be a completely different person in order to benefit from it.

In short, I agree with the spirit of Rawls' thought, but I don't think it naturally guides different people to the same conclusion (which is ultimately its goal).

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I don't think the original position is supposed to serve the same function in Rawls's philosophy that the state of nature serves in Enlightenment-era political thought. Somebody entertaining the original position and the veil of ignorance has by implication already decided to participate in a social contract; if you're behind the veil of ignorance you're actually much less well-informed about the world around you than someone in the state of nature is (since, from Rawls's point of view, if you're entering into the social contract with some idea of whether and how well you might game it, you're entering into the social contract with some kind of angle).

[Person Man]

It's an interesting thought experiment that I think nonetheless fails to necessitate many of the conclusions Rawls and others draw from it. The point of the idea (to put it crudely) is to use individual self-interest to justify the welfare state. Here is how I see the problem with this line of reasoning:

Let's imagine a naturally gifted/intelligent individual performing the "Veil of Ignorance" thought experiment. You can imagine this person being a "Renaissance Man" or a "savant," but whatever stereotype of "genius" you choose, assume that this is someone who has been naturally skilled at intellectual pursuits for their entire life.

First, let's say this person performs one version of the Veil of Ignorance experiment: They imagine themselves as they are, but do not know the circumstances under which they will be born into the world. This intelligent person would probably be confident that they would be able to succeed regardless of their status at birth. They might not be able to succeed in any circumstance-- not, say, if they were born into slavery-- but a "gifted" person would probably be willing to tolerate more extreme inequities in the socioeconomic structure provided that the hierarchy is meritocratic. Someone unsure of their skills or intellect would almost certainly see things the other way.

But now let's take the Veil of Ignorance one step further. Instead of just saying that we don't know our social status at birth in this society, let's say that the veil also obscures other things about us-- our natural intelligence, our appearance, our race, our physical build and abilities-- things that are determined largely by genetic factors. The problem with expanding the thought experiment this way is that you are now asking the person to essentially imagine that they are someone else entirely. There's nothing wrong with that for philosophical purposes, but the point of the experiment is to use self-interest to justify an egalitarian society. This does not work if a person must ignore major elements of their own identity to perform the thought experiment. It's hard to see how something can be in "my best interest" when I have to imagine myself to be a completely different person in order to benefit from it.

In short, I agree with the spirit of Rawls' thought, but I don't think it naturally guides different people to the same conclusion (which is ultimately its goal).

Wasn’t it DuTocqueville who basically thought you could justify any political system if you marketed it as a sort of lottery?