Original Position - SEP

ID: 58f6b9cb-05e1-452e-8e65-34aa5041ab9a
ROAM_REFS: @freemanOriginalPosition2016
REVIEW_SCORE: 0.0
MTIME: [2024-12-25 Wed 15:54]

The SEP discussion of "Rawls' social contract account of justice". Discusses the veil of ignorance.

This concept can be thought of as a game-theoretic solution to discovering what the ethical thing to do ina context is. Two major questions can be asked in response to this idea:

• why is it the right one? What makes this a good characterisation of "morality"?
• does it work? is it the sort of thought experiment that breaks down in practice?

Brought up in the context of people to critique as a jumping off point for an attempt at a partial answer to question 2: "in many contexts, no." Source of T's joke title for the impossibility theorem I wanted to derive: Unveiling the Veil of Ignorance, or yet another reason why the veil of ingorance is full of holes. Revisit this note if we ever do a reread of tarnasPassionWesternMind1993.

This node is a singleton!