Critiques/thoughts on this mans work? Particularly the veil of

>>2214582
Studied this guy last semester.
The whole veil of ignorance/original position thing really is brilliant but will never be applicable.
One thing that i find very amusing is that the modern liberals' and democrats' ideologies are basically misintepretations of what he said. I liked him but he came off as too idealistical and far from reality. Definitely not the answer to America's problems

File: Lc5SNcP.jpg (235KB, 781x1600px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 781x1600px

He completely ignores genetic continuity and an overarching selection (for a lack of a better term) perspective.

Veil of ignorance is stupid, you don't just spawn out of an ether with random "stats", you are a product of two biological beings and their genes.

>>2214582
He makes too many assumptions about human choice behind the veil. People are not necessarily as materialistic as Rawls would like to assume.

Bear in mind that his argument is essentially: "doesn't this sound like a good idea?"

He appeals to certain values and ideas in attempting to persuade those who use the veil of ignorance. He is not arguing that 'justice as fairness' is in anyway absolutely true or the best possible outcome for a society.

It's a good summarization of the liberal Utopian dream but it is not persuasive to anyone with a conservative political foundation. The guy's a relativist so he's basically just trying to persuade you. Sure if you accept all his a priori bullshit it makes sense but theres no compelling reason to other than "muh feels".

His veil of ignorance isn't the worst standard for a just society I've ever heard. I think a society built around it could be reasonably called "fair."

>>2214775
>but theres no compelling reason to other than "muh feels".

That's the argument behind basically any theory of justice or morality, however. You act as though we don't pick our ideals primarily from sentiment.

>>2214648
>>2214658
>>2214775
>>2214795
So would you argue that creating laws/policy under his moral ideals is bennificialc or no? Would it be best for society/objectively fair to allow inequalities that favor the less-advantaged castes of society?

>>2214900
The Veil of Ignorance is impossible to implement. The VoI isn't even his argument, though--his argument is that a society is best if it keeps the worst off members as well off as they can possibly be. My question: why prioritize improving the lives of slum-dwellers if it means keeping them in slums anyway? What about the costs to every other caste in society--shouldn't they receive compensation for the attempts to improve the welfare and quality of life of the least advantaged? If policies oriented in this direction start to adversely affect classes with a lot of purchasing power or involved in the nation's essential productive activity, why shouldn't they be eliminated as soon as this starts or prevented outright? Anyway, why isn't Rawls a Marxist? No, really, why? Why shouldn't the worst off seize the means of production, instead of relying on their owners to increase the size of their government-subsidized housing complexes? Does Rawls even address Marxism openly? Why not?
>Would it be best for society/objectively fair to allow inequalities that favor the less-advantaged castes of society?
I don't understand what you mean by this.

>>2215591
>>Would it be best for society/objectively fair to allow inequalities that favor the less-advantaged castes of society?
I think it has something to do wtih his difference principle. It says that inequalities that work for the advantage of the worst-off should be allowed. Something along these lines

>>2214648
>The whole veil of ignorance/original position thing really is brilliant but will never be applicable.

It's not meant to be 'applicable'. It's not , policy suggestion; it's a thought experiment AND the justification for the two principles of justice.

You're the second person in two days I've seen make this mistake here. What is going on?

>>2215591
>his argument is that a society is best if it keeps the worst off members as well off as they can possibly be

No, it isn't. It's merely that inequality in rights and the distribution of good is only permissible if the worst off are better for that inequality than a counter-factual equality.

>>2214775

>The guy's a relativist

No, he's a Kantian.

>>2214658

Sexual and emotional interest varies over the course of the estrus cycle.

>>2216127
>It's not meant to be 'applicable'. It's not , policy suggestion; it's a thought experiment
It's supposed to be applicable in the sense that this thought experiment will tell if a society is just or not. And this simply doesn't work as a parameter.
>If you accept being born in a society with no knowledge of your future social context (i.e. race, status and wealth) because everyone is equal than that society is just
I say it's not applicable because we'll never get to this point. I mean, it isn't even possible, humans will always look to possess the advantage in their social/economical interections.
Total egalitarianism is nothing more than leftist delusion. While i do agree that equal terms should be implemented to some extent, the notion that everyone should be born under equal circumstances is nothing more than an utopia.

>>2214582
>dude, I can save social contract theory I promise
>proceeds to fall into a utilitarian mess of shit

>>2216461
>the notion that everyone should be born under equal circumstances is nothing more than an utopia.

This isn't what Rawls argues. AGAIN, the veil if ignorance is NOT A PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE, NOR A CONDITION FOR ITS POSSIBILITY. IT IS THE CONCEPTUAL GROUND FOR THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE. IT IS NOT A MAGICAL RESET BUTTON.

No one is born under equal circumstances, nor is Rawls proposing this can or should be the case. Where are you getting this from you stupid dumb idiot.

>>2216741
>No one is born under equal circumstances, nor is Rawls proposing this can or should be the case.
I'm not saying he proposes this, but he does say that a society under these cinrumstances is just.
> the veil if ignorance is NOT A PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE, NOR A CONDITION FOR ITS POSSIBILITY. IT IS THE CONCEPTUAL GROUND FOR THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE.
I don't believe that for a second. Rawls porposes the use of the veil as way to see other people not as means but as ends. That is, everyone should wear the veil sometimes so we can have a more reasonable society. That's when he says the veil is extremely important, because throught it we can accomplish tolerance, which is the tool for a more reasonable and cooperative society.
The veil isn't just a thought experiment, it's supposed to be a tool for a more reasonable and just society.

>>2214582
The veil of ignorance takes as axiomatic various assumptions about the nature of justice and how to achieve.