The Veil of Ignorance

[PokerGuy]

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.

Yes, there are many studies on this, and one thing they definitely show is that there are a lot more factors that play into the decision than simply a rational analysis of the facts. That's where the idea breaks down.

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.

Nonsense. I'm fully capable of understanding that I could be anywhere in the spectrum of success in this fictional setup, but that doesn't mean I would design the world based on that possibility. I would not. And given thousands of years of evidence around us, neither would anyone else.

 

[werepossum]

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?

If I KNEW going to be born as a person with below-average intelligence and psychological problems, then I'd prefer a European style socialist society where I could compete, as witnessed by the French civil servant whose brain was determined to be only a fraction of an inch thick over a hollow core of fluid. But that's the ONLY way I'd prefer a European style socialist society. Otherwise I'll take my chances in America. Well, pre-Obama America anyway.

 

[Infohawk]

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

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.

People buy lottery tickets because they have an irrational hope of winning and because there is very little downside. On the other hand, being at the bottom of society can be quite horrible. The downside is huge. It's a terrible analogy.

Yes, there are many studies on this, and one thing they definitely show is that there are a lot more factors that play into the decision than simply a rational analysis of the facts. That's where the idea breaks down.

Nonsense. I'm fully capable of understanding that I could be anywhere in the spectrum of success in this fictional setup, but that doesn't mean I would design the world based on that possibility. I would not.

In that case you may be underestimating the suffering that can come with being at the bottom. In any case, I don't think the majority of people would agree with you.

And given thousands of years of evidence around us, neither would anyone else.

What exactly are you talking about here? People haven't been entertaining this idea for thousands of years.

 

[bfdd]

I would never make the "communist" utopia because I like losers. I think losing makes a person stronger and makes their winning matter all that much more. If people couldn't lose and fall on their face, life would be boring and I'd probably kill myself regardless of position in the world.

 

[Infohawk]

If I KNEW going to be born as a person with below-average intelligence and psychological problems, then I'd prefer a European style socialist society

Right. The point of this thought experiment is to bring about people to think more fairly and with more sympathy / empathy.

 

[werepossum]

Right. The point of this thought experiment is to bring about people to think more fairly and with more sympathy / empathy.

But if you think of only the lowest among us, our society will inevitably become the lowest among us.

 

[bfdd]

Right. The point of this thought experiment is to bring about people to think more fairly and with more sympathy / empathy.

Why isn't their any sympathy or empathy from those who do the burdening? Honestly I'm curious. I think to many people believe in the "right to life" which is just non-sense. Even the pro-choice people put a heavy value on the "right to life" like just being born means everyone else owes you something. It's non-sense and unrealistic.

 

[Infohawk]

But if you think of only the lowest among us, our society will inevitably become the lowest among us.

That is very general statement and I just don't see how it's necessarily true. And it's not like the goal is to only consider the worst cases, but it's important not to treat it like some lottery with little consequences if you were to lose and end up in a libertarian society and to actually recognize the chance of being at the bottom.

Why isn't their any sympathy or empathy from those who do the burdening? Honestly I'm curious. I think to many people believe in the "right to life" which is just non-sense. Even the pro-choice people put a heavy value on the "right to life" like just being born means everyone else owes you something. It's non-sense and unrealistic.

I am not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Who is doing the burdening? Are you saying that you don't think humans deserve a certain level of respect?

 

[bfdd]

I'm saying those that burden are allowed to be without empathy for those they burden? When creating this "world" in the though experiment all I am stuck on exploiting, abusing and burdening others. The government/society that prevents those the best, is the one for me. One that simply redistributes to the bottom does nothing but support those putting burden on others. Why? Because waah afraid of being a piece of garbage not worth your own life, so you want to create a "socialist utopia" to me that's wrong regardless of what position in life I'm in. Billionaire tycoon or wheelchair bound bum.

 

[sandorski]

It's an accurate position. Equality of Outcome wouldn't work. However, other than it being a philosophical position, it is on the verge of being used as a Strawman in political debate. Very very few people advocate Equality of Outcome. In fact, even in the Soviet Union it didn't exist, although it came very close to it.

What is advocated most from the Left is a Minimum Level of Outcome. In the US at this time one example of this would be Health Insurance for All.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm saying those that burden are allowed to be without empathy for those they burden? When creating this "world" in the though experiment all I am stuck on exploiting, abusing and burdening others. The government/society that prevents those the best, is the one for me. One that simply redistributes to the bottom does nothing but support those putting burden on others. Why? Because waah afraid of being a piece of garbage not worth your own life, so you want to create a "socialist utopia" to me that's wrong regardless of what position in life I'm in. Billionaire tycoon or wheelchair bound bum.

So you never ask for help?

 

[bfdd]

So you never ask for help?

Not usually without first thinking of what I can do to repay the help. I hate asking people for help, I hate putting burden on others, but if I have to I at least try to make up for it in some way. In what way does the creator of the "thought experiment" account for people who think like me and have no issue with falling down because we enjoy standing back up?

btw I on most occasions go out of my way and allow others to burden me probably much more than I should, but I will still hold the position that others shouldn't feel good about themselves being a burden on others. even if that burden is simply existing.

 

[Infohawk]

Not usually without first thinking of what I can do to repay the help. I hate asking people for help, I hate putting burden on others, but if I have to I at least try to make up for it in some way. In what way does the creator of the "thought experiment" account for people who think like me and have no issue with falling down because we enjoy standing back up?

btw I on most occasions go out of my way and allow others to burden me probably much more than I should, but I will still hold the position that others shouldn't feel good about themselves being a burden on others. even if that burden is simply existing.

To me what is interesting is the people that don't get back up. Some people lead miserable lives that end and never make it work. To me, someone who talks about getting knocked down and gets back up isn't talking about the suffering some people actually experience.