Ancaps and libertarians, what do you think about the veil of

>>2465108
>what do you think about the veil of ignorance

I think that trying to make decisions about the ordering of society from a perspecitve of not knowing what role you'll have in that society is a useful sort of thought experiment, if impractical to do in real life.

But Rawls's assumption that everyone would make their decisions based on the least advantaged members of society is specious. What if I'm a larger picture utilitarian, and think that we should try to maximize some sort of overall gain, instead of gain for the most marginalized?

>Would you still hold your beliefs if you knew that you were a disabled child, who needs expensive medication, born to poor parents and there were no support from the state?

Doesn't that itself invalidate the veil of ignorance? Now you're replacing one set of personal biases with a different set of personal biases.

>>2465140
>Doesn't that itself invalidate the veil of ignorance? Now you're replacing one set of personal biases with a different set of personal biases.

The point is not that you know you'll be that that child, but that you don't know you won't.

>>2465432
So then you are mis-stating it. It's would you still hold your beliefs if you know that you MIGHT be a disabled child in terrible circumstances, not that you will, of a certainty, be one.

It is basically utilitarianism which isn't everything in ethics.

Why don't you commit suicide so your organs can be harvested to save 5 lives?

>>2465108
Pretty much >>2465140

Not to mention that the logical conclusion of the veil of ignorance is a technocratic meritocracy, rather than Rawls' proposed industrial capitalism. Any advantage one human has over another, be it inheritance, non-standardized education, etc. appears deeply unfair through this lens, and would be abolished.

But why stop at advantages outside of the body? Is it fair for one man to be more brilliant, athletic, or good-looking merely because he was born into it? The Veil of Ignorance says no. So we are left to conclude that the most ethical society is the one laid out in Harrison Bergeron.

Ultimately, the thought experiment falls flat because fairness is a flawed concept to begin with. Societies should be planned primarily to last, and secondarily to protect citizens. Everything else is just trading one sort of oppression for another.

>>2466777
>The Veil of Ignorance says no.
No it doesn't. The veil of ignorance is simply a lens. It doesn't say jack shit. In fact most people would allow for a level of unfairness if on average most people end up benefiting from it.

>>2466821
I see your point, but where does the line get drawn? It's ultimately an arbitrary decision, and when it gets made, certain rights/protections have to be dropped.

>>2465108
>A grander example would be if each individual in society were to base their practices off the fact that they could be the least advantaged member of society

Power and knowledge are concentrated in every society that's ever existed, they can't be artificially "distributed", and at least in the US a degree of social mobility is the norm even now.

This argument also takes for granted that disadvantaged people know what's best for themselves. If they did most of them wouldn't be "disadvantaged" in the first place.

>>2466882
The line gets drawn wherever the person doing the thought experiment draws the line. It's like the trolley problem. There's no right answer, it's just a thought experiment to test your ethics against.

>>2465108
>if you knew that you were a disabled child

that's not the veil of ignorance retard

>>2465108
Rawls assumes his favored social system is the most fair and logical way to distribute goods form a neutral perspective

>Would you still hold your beliefs if you knew that you were a disabled child, who needs expensive medication, born to poor parents and there were no support from the state?
Yes.

>>2465108
>Would you still hold your beliefs if you knew that you were a disabled child, who needs expensive medication, born to poor parents and there were no support from the state?

Yes.

Who do you imagine here is against providing subsidized healthcare for the legitimately needy?

We're not /biz/ for gods sake.

>>2467211
>subsidized healthcare

why do we even have currency to subsidize if this society is fully moral?