The Veil of Ignorance

[zsdersw]

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/08/13...confuse-tools-with-the-buildings-they-create/

Play out the thought experiment. How would you design/create a society, country, or civilization from behind the veil of ignorance?

 

[PokerGuy]

Everyday I see people walking around with a veil of ignorance on the street. Oh wait, different veil

Interesting article, though I think Rawls' ideas are deeply flawed. Equality of outcome is an incredibly stupid idea, as has been demonstrated over thousands of years. Equality of opportunity is important, equality of outcome is not only impossible, it's undesirable and stupid.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't think Rawls was talking about equality of outcome, per se, but of an arrangement of inequalities that work to the advantage of the worst-off.

Rawls says in his A Theory of Justice:

"Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and
(b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity."

 

[PokerGuy]

Hmm.. that's not how I read the article.

John Rawls, the philosopher who invented the concept of the veil of ignorance, concluded that because people are risk-averse, they would construct a society where everyone is equal rather than one where there are rich as well as poor people.

Rawls took this idea one step further. He argued that people would want a society where there is equality of outcome: everyone ends up in the same place, regardless of intelligence, talent or strength, because even these things are randomly distributed at birth.

Looks to me like he's saying because you don't know where you'd end up on the distribution (smart/dumb, rich/poor whatever), you'd pick a setup where there is equality of outcome. That makes no sense, he fails to include significant factors into the equation.

 

[fskimospy]

Looks to me like he's saying because you don't know where you'd end up on the distribution (smart/dumb, rich/poor whatever), you'd pick a setup where there is equality of outcome. That makes no sense, he fails to include significant factors into the equation.

What significant factors?

 

[PokerGuy]

What significant factors?

The article mentions some of them, but for starters, people tend to be irrational in certain ways. People buy lottery tickets and play football thinking they're going to the NFL. Bands keep playing for years thinking they will get "their big breakout" at some point, when statistics says they won't.

His idea also assumes the pie to be divided among the people is the same, but clearly certain incentives / disincentives would create a bigger or smaller pie over time to be divided.

He also doesn't account for desire, willingness to persevere and willingness to work hard -- even if that's driven by necessity to survive. If someone doesn't have food, they'll do whatever it takes to survive, even if they might not otherwise be inclined to work particularly hard.

The notion that people would ultimately want an equal-outcome setup is dumb, as we have thousands of years of empirical evidence that says otherwise. Equal outcome can not happen, nor should it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Interesting article by the way zsdersw, good read.

 

[fskimospy]

The article mentions some of them, but for starters, people tend to be irrational in certain ways. People buy lottery tickets and play football thinking they're going to the NFL. Bands keep playing for years thinking they will get "their big breakout" at some point, when statistics says they won't.

His idea also assumes the pie to be divided among the people is the same, but clearly certain incentives / disincentives would create a bigger or smaller pie over time to be divided.

The notion that people would ultimately want an equal-outcome setup is dumb, as we have thousands of years of empirical evidence that says otherwise. Equal outcome can not happen, nor should it.

Rawls' argument doesn't speak to what might be the most effective economic system, just the one that people would prefer if setting it up for the first time.

While people are sometimes irrational, I think it's clear that Rawls is instead arguing what the majority of people would choose. As for what history proves about what people want, I don't know if that's true at all. When people have had a chance to reengineer the social contract it has almost always been in the spirit of increasing equality, not decreasing it. Just because society exists in a certain way doesn't mean that people would prefer that outcome. (take the prisoner's dilemma for an example)

 

[PokerGuy]

While people are sometimes irrational, I think it's clear that Rawls is instead arguing what the majority of people would choose.

Sure, and that's why I said he's wrong because he ignores factors and reality. Is there any push anywhere towards equal outcomes? Equal opportunity, yes, outcomes, no.

When people have had a chance to reengineer the social contract it has almost always been in the spirit of increasing equality, not decreasing it.

Increasing equality of opportunity, not outcomes.

Just because society exists in a certain way doesn't mean that people would prefer that outcome. (take the prisoner's dilemma for an example)

Perhaps, but I don't see any evidence to think people would prefer that outcome either. Rawls' postulates and suggests reasons why it might be so, but doesn't have any evidence to support his idea.

 

[zsdersw]

Hmm.. that's not how I read the article.

Looks to me like he's saying because you don't know where you'd end up on the distribution (smart/dumb, rich/poor whatever), you'd pick a setup where there is equality of outcome. That makes no sense, he fails to include significant factors into the equation.

I found further info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice

Specifically, the Second Principle of Justice.

 

[a777pilot]

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need


ROFLMAO!

 

[zsdersw]

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need


ROFLMAO!

You're reaching only for the McNuggets of the matter, I see.

 

[piasabird]

People are not that predictable. Under the law people are equall, but that is not reality. While one person is dyslexic, another person may read a chapter in a textbook and remember almost everything in there in its entirety. No two people are equal. What seems easy for one person like Math or Biology, the other person just fails to be able to comprehend.

 

[WHAMPOM]

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need


ROFLMAO!

Spirit behind the "money equals free speech" decision.

 

[werepossum]

I would never design a society with equality of outcome; the article's author points out very well why this would be a very bad idea. Even were I sure of being born into the current generation, creating a society with equality of outcome would be an evil thing to do to successive generations.

 

[waggy]

I would never design a society with equality of outcome; the article's author points out very well why this would be a very bad idea. Even were I sure of being born into the current generation, creating a society with equality of outcome would be an evil thing to do to successive generations.

not to mention impossible. Human nature wouldn't allow it

 

[Infohawk]

Rawls made one of the biggest intellectual contributions of the 20th century with the veil of ignorance. It's a simple yet powerful idea that should be brought up more often in political discourse. I don't see any valid objections in this blog article.

I suspect many people simply aren't able to put themselves in the original position. They simply can't separate themselves from their current life situation.

The article mentions some of them, but for starters, people tend to be irrational in certain ways. People buy lottery tickets and play football thinking they're going to the NFL. Bands keep playing for years thinking they will get "their big breakout" at some point, when statistics says they won't.

His idea also assumes the pie to be divided among the people is the same, but clearly certain incentives / disincentives would create a bigger or smaller pie over time to be divided.

He also doesn't account for desire, willingness to persevere and willingness to work hard -- even if that's driven by necessity to survive. If someone doesn't have food, they'll do whatever it takes to survive, even if they might not otherwise be inclined to work particularly hard.

This is an example. The idea is what if there was a chance you were going to be born as someone who might not have the opportunity to understand that lottery tickets are a bad idea? Maybe then you would not have legal gambling? You might be more likely to want a good education system? Your football example is odd because beyond the injury likelihood sports are generally a good thing. It's the same idea with your concern about willingess to work hard. What if you are the one born lazy? I don't think most people who select a system where they were driven to starvation to motivate them. You really have to be able to put yourself in the original position.

Regarding the pie issue, Rawls accounts for it:

What, then, could justify unequal distribution? Rawls argues that inequality is acceptable only if it is to the advantage of those who are worst-off. -Wikipedia

So yes, if allowing giant rewards for entrepreneurs helps the person at the bottom of the food chain, it could be ok. Rawls was actually attacked from his left precisely because it can justify a modern liberal economy. Of course it doesn't justify extreme conservative / anarcho-capitalist positions that view people as expendable.

 

[werepossum]

Rawls made one of the biggest intellectual contributions of the 20th century with the veil of ignorance. It's a simple yet powerful idea that should be brought up more often in political discourse. I don't see any valid objections in this blog article.

I suspect many people simply aren't able to put themselves in the original position. They simply can't separate themselves from their current life situation.



This is an example. The idea is what if there was a chance you were going to be born as someone who might not have the opportunity to understand that lottery tickets are a bad idea? Maybe then you would not have legal gambling? You might be more likely to want a good education system? Your football example is odd because beyond the injury likelihood sports are generally a good thing. It's the same idea with your concern about willingess to work hard. What if you are the one born lazy? I don't think most people who select a system where they were driven to starvation to motivate them. You really have to be able to put yourself in the original position.

Regarding the pie issue, Rawls accounts for it:



So yes, if allowing giant rewards for entrepreneurs helps the person at the bottom of the food chain, it could be ok. Rawls was actually attacked from his left precisely because it can justify a modern liberal economy. Of course it doesn't justify extreme conservative / anarcho-capitalist positions that view people as expendable.

I think your logic is flawed. The only possible way to ensure equal outcomes for people born as someone who might not have the opportunity to understand that lottery tickets are a bad investment (whatever that means) is to seize every bit of wealth and make every decision - in other words, to destroy the concept of the individual and replace it with the collective, managing people like livestock. Yet someone must make those decisions; some group of people must have free will. To make those decisions on anything like a rational basis, that group of people must have good educations. And unless there are replacements for humans, those people will inevitably reward themselves. After all, the most socialist of those in power, the Obamas, Ayers, Kennedies, routinely accept rewards far in excess of average. How much more richly rewarded would they be if they held ultimate power?

 

[Infohawk]

I think your logic is flawed. The only possible way to ensure equal outcomes for people born as someone who might not have the opportunity to understand that lottery tickets are a bad investment (whatever that means) is to seize every bit of wealth and make every decision - in other words, to destroy the concept of the individual and replace it with the collective, managing people like livestock. Yet someone must make those decisions; some group of people must have free will. To make those decisions on anything like a rational basis, that group of people must have good educations. And unless there are replacements for humans, those people will inevitably reward themselves. After all, the most socialist of those in power, the Obamas, Ayers, Kennedies, routinely accept rewards far in excess of average. How much more richly rewarded would they be if they held ultimate power?

You still seem to going forward on the assumption that he insists on communist outcomes. Again, his conclusion is that you can have unequal distribution if it benefits the least fortunate. (That is basically a defense for western style economies in most people's views.) But you don't have to accept his conclusion to entertain the initial step. The initial step is to imagine how you would want society to be set up if you didn't know which position you were going to be born into.

If you knew you were going to be born as a person with below-average intelligence and psychological problems, how would you want society to be set up? Would you really want society to be set up so that you could be left to die on the street like in some libertarian fantasies?

 

[PokerGuy]

Rawls made one of the biggest intellectual contributions of the 20th century with the veil of ignorance. It's a simple yet powerful idea that should be brought up more often in political discourse. I don't see any valid objections in this blog article.

It's an interesting idea, but deeply flawed and simply wrong in it's conclusion. Just because you don't see valid objections doesn't make them invalid.

This is an example. The idea is what if there was a chance you were going to be born as someone who might not have the opportunity to understand that lottery tickets are a bad idea? Maybe then you would not have legal gambling?

I used the lottery example to illustrate the fact that people do not act on a strictly rational basis. There are countless examples of people acting irrationally based on the facts at hand. People are not computers, and they act based on a multitude of factors. Rawls is only accounting for a very limited set of factors or motivators.

Regarding the pie issue, Rawls accounts for it:

Just because he mentions some 'rule' for when it would be acceptable doesn't mean his idea holds any more water. It's an interesting thought experiment, but it simply doesn't jive with human nature or reality, and there's a mountain of empirical evidence that says so.

 

[PokerGuy]

If you knew you were going to be born as a person with below-average intelligence and psychological problems, how would you want society to be set up?

Based on the veil of ignorance, you would not know where you were going to end up in terms of intelligence etc etc, but you would know based on the odds that the chances of being in the bottom fringe would still be lower than the odds of being somewhere in the middle of the bell curve on most scales. Thus you would build a society based on that premise, not on the possibility that you might be at the lower end of the scale. That's just not how humans think and act.

 

[Infohawk]

It's an interesting idea, but deeply flawed and simply wrong in it's conclusion. Just because you don't see valid objections doesn't make them invalid.

I used the lottery example to illustrate the fact that people do not act on a strictly rational basis. There are countless examples of people acting irrationally based on the facts at hand. People are not computers, and they act based on a multitude of factors. Rawls is only accounting for a very limited set of factors or motivators.

Just because he mentions some 'rule' for when it would be acceptable doesn't mean his idea holds any more water. It's an interesting thought experiment, but it simply doesn't jive with human nature or reality, and there's a mountain of empirical evidence that says so.

And just because you say something is deeply flawed and wrong in its conclusion, doesn't mean they are deeply flawed or wrong. You haven't really provided reasons why it's flawed.

Rawls is not assuming that people act like computers. I don't know where you're getting that from.

It's a thought experiment, but I haven't seen you actually do the experiment. What kind of society would you want to make if there was the chance you could be born with serious disadvantages?

 

[Infohawk]

Based on the veil of ignorance, you would not know where you were going to end up in terms of intelligence etc etc, but you would know based on the odds that the chances of being in the bottom fringe would still be lower than the odds of being somewhere in the middle of the bell curve on most scales. Thus you would build a society based on that premise, not on the possibility that you might be at the lower end of the scale. That's just not how humans think and act.

Well there have been studies that show humans are naturally more risk averse and that they try to minimize losses over risking for an advantage even when the odds are exactly the same. I don't really believe that most people would take some sort of gamble about ending up in the top or the middle.

As I said in my initial post, I think certain people are just unwilling to imagine being born into a disadvantaged situation. You've just tried to rationalize your way out of doing that here.

 

[PokerGuy]

And just because you say something is deeply flawed and wrong in its conclusion, doesn't mean they are deeply flawed or wrong. You haven't really provided reasons why it's flawed.

Yes, I have, but you just don't like them or agree with them.

It's a thought experiment, but I haven't seen you actually do the experiment. What kind of society would you want to make if there was the chance you could be born with serious disadvantages?

I have done the thought experiment, and I came to a very different conclusion than the one Rawls postulates. It simply would not make sense to build a society on the possibility that one could be at the bottom fringe of that society. You'd build it based on the overall odds, ie maximum "utility" (happiness, wealth, whatever).

The example given in the article (taking 1 million instead of a chance at more) is a good example of a concept that does not scale up or down all the time as you would expect. It might hold at 1 milllion, but the fact that people buy lottery tickets shows that they would rather have an infinitesimally small chance at winning millions than have a guaranteed $5 in their hands. In realty the $5 would buy you more than the expected outcome of your ticket, but yet people buy lottery tickets anyway.

 

[bfdd]

I would do my best to make sure the "law" treated/viewed everyone as equals. In all regards. As this could create great issues in relation to freedom and liberty, there would obviously be very very view laws. Most would deal with abuse or exploitation of others.