Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that No party behind the veil of ignorance can press for principles that arbitrarily favor the particular citizen they represent.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Parties behind the veil retain knowledge of general facts about human psychology, including risk-aversion, which systematically favors certain life-plan structures over others.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Maximin reasoning, which Rawls endorses for the original position, itself encodes a particular attitude toward risk that arbitrarily privileges the worst-off over other distributions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Harsanyi demonstrated that rational agents under genuine ignorance should maximize expected utility, not adopt maximin, making the veil's output indeterminate without smuggled-in assumptions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The selection of which contingencies to exclude behind the veil is itself a normative choice that embeds substantive liberal values prior to any agreement, undermining the claim of procedural neutrality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
No party knows the specific attributes of the citizen they represent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.