Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/creating-a-just-society-may-require-a-veil-of-ignorance/

I've always been a fan of Rawlsian ethics even before I could put a name to them.

That video is remarkably bad at explaining what this concept is about XD Care to explain?

What it says is that if you imagine you can reconstruct society exactly as you would like it to be, but your position in the new society will be random, you are likely to opt for a much fairer society with lots of freedom, equal opportunity for all, and taxation on high income in order to lift up the poor, unless it is seen that the high earner is actually benefitting the poor by his high earnings. (I'm not sure how that bit works but maybe for example the Gates Foundation is benefitting the poor after Bill Gates having become very rich.)

It does a quick job of explaining the system. The idea is that in order to make a just society, you must determine what you would like society to be like if you didn't know what your place in society would be.

Rawls contended that this would lead to a society that had freedoms but there would be a guaranteed minimal value that everyone would get. Sort of like a guaranteed income, but applied to everything. You still had incentive to work harder and benefit yourself, but regardless, you would have the minimal value.

This is different than utilitarianism (where the overall good of society is considered when making ethical decisions. This leads to things like gun control, control over the size of drinks, the war on drugs, and state sanctioned religions.

It also differs from Libertarianism where there are no guaranteed minimum values and it is a dog eat dog world where the strong and lucky prosper and the weak and unlucky are ground underfoot.

I first saw this theorem explained in a seminar by Warren Buffett. Buffett approved of Rawls hypothesis, which appears odd if we look at the mans career.

Rawls essentially proposes a socialist model government with heavy emphasis on weath distribution, not exactly the clarion call of an arch-capitalist.

I don't think he exactly proposes that. He proposes that that is what we the people would propose if we did it from the situation of blind choice that Rawls posits in his thought experiment.

To put things a different way, let's imagine the British decide to tot up all the wealth of the country -- land, capital (shares, etc.) cash and stores of minerals and machinery, and so on -- and redistribute it according to a random lottery. Everybody gets one ticket, and the prize allocated to each ticket is to be decided by the people before the draw goes ahead.

Would you as a participant in the lottery want a very small chance of winning a very big prize, and a very big chance of winning a miserably small prize, or would you prefer a guaranteed chance of winning at least a moderate prize, with some larger prizes available for luckier people?

The follow on is that once society is reorganised after the lottery, there will be the chance for thrusting "successful" people to build up businesses and enrich themselves but only within limits defined by society as a whole.

What I find problematic about Rawls thought experiment* is that there is an underlying assumption that there is no merit in who ends up in what position. That merit plays no part in determining who ends up the street sweeper and who is the CEO. Now, personally I think luck and circumstances of birth play a bigger role than most people realise, but I don't think you can just hide that kind of thing away in your assumptions.

Instead, Rawls first needs to do the good work of establishing to people why modern society is not actually much of a meritocracy at all. But then if you can convince people of that then people being to naturally favour equality, and the thought experiment becomes useless. As such, the experiment only becomes useful for people who already believe its conclusions.






*And with the proviso I may not understand it particularly well.

No, that assumption isn't there. Rawlsian ethics still rewards hard work/luck. The theory isn't about how your position in society is determined so much as what the benefits of that position are.

 skyth wrote:
No, that assumption isn't there. Rawlsian ethics still rewards hard work/luck. The theory isn't about how your position in society is determined so much as what the benefits of that position are.

You've missed my point - I'm not talking about luck/merit elements in a Rawlsian society, I'm talking about the thought experiment. The question is asked how a person might design a society if their own place in that society was decided by luck - they would likely look to make it more equitable. That is then used to make a comment about our own society and its inequality.

The problem, though, is that the comment only makes sense if we assume that one's place in our society is determined largely by luck. If a person believes that we are living in something close to a meritocracy then the whole thing falls down.

And that's the problem, I think. If someone is inclined to believe luck plays a large part in placing someone in our current society, then the thought experiment does nothing, it is preaching to the converted. But if they don't believe luck plays a large part, then they're unlikely to be swayed by the thought experiment.

I think you are missing the point.

Rawls idea is that in order to make an unbiased decision on a just and fair society, you need to put the individualistic self-interest of people, that is born out of their social situation (as well as other factrs and prejudices), out of the decision-making process, both of the poor, who will always vote for redistribution, and the well-off, who will always vote for stability and against redistribution.

How do you do that? You take away expected specific personal benefits and only leave possible general personal benefits of a societal contract.
Once that happens, so the theory - and to an extent as following questionnaires and tests have shown - most people will chose a system of moderate redistribution, i.e. a system where personal merit is still valued but libertarian extremes are capped and everyone gets a basic income (I am simplifying for argument's sake).

In other words, take individual riches and poberty out of the equation and people will vote surprisingly similar.

 treslibras wrote:
I think you are missing the point.

I think you're missing the critique. He isn't misunderstanding the theory (subsequent explanations have done well to make it clear). Sebster is saying that the thought experiment is of limited usefulness because it is either preaching to the choir, or easily dismissed by attacking its underlying assumptions. I.E. The experiment is a pit of circular logic. The choir agrees with it because it supports the assumptions they already have, and the non-choir dismisses it because its assumptions are different from their assumptions.

This seems accurate with what I've read in thread. I also would point out there seems to be no practicality to this theory outside the thought experiment. It's an interesting experiment for picking apart how people make decisions, but I fail to see how this could ever form a coherent system to improve social equity.

Actually it has the basis of very good system of ethics. Do what you want as long as you leave enough for other people. It's a good way to make a just society.

We already have random placement in social strata in society. Nobody gets to pick their parents. My mother might be a homeless drug addict ex con or a struggling single parent or be a wife in a healthy marriage or be the Queen of England or Princess of Monaco. That's always been true. By he time you're old enough to understand what society is and how it works you're old enough to realize that you have no control over your starting point in that society.

 sebster wrote:
And that's the problem, I think. If someone is inclined to believe luck plays a large part in placing someone in our current society, then the thought experiment does nothing, it is preaching to the converted. But if they don't believe luck plays a large part, then they're unlikely to be swayed by the thought experiment.

I don't know. I think plenty of people think that they accomplished what they accomplished by merit alone, and perhaps their friends and family also achieved through merit alone. That doesn't mean they presume that all achievement is due to merit. There's a part of every tycoon that resents old money, after all.

Although I suppose there are still plenty of Calvinists that believe societal position is correlated highly to God's favor.

I think you're missing the point. The theory has absolutely nothing to do with how people actually achieve their position in society. In fact, Rawlsian ethics support merit based placement when followed. Not knowing where your place in society or the skills you have, etc...most people would still want placement in society determined by merit.

I would say that they would do what they can to equalize the starting position though.

The Rawlsian experiment also leads to the conclusion that there should be upper and lower limits of personal wealth and power.

In the Rawlsian society, even if you are the "best" person in the world at copying a social media idea or a smartphone app, you still won't get to be more than say 20 times richer than the poorest member of society.

OTOH if you are such a layabout as to make Rab C Nesbit look like a paragon of industrious virtue, you will never increase your income to more than 10% of the mean. (I'm assuming an income distribution of 1 to 20, making the mean 10.)

Sebster is talking about how people would accept the thought experiment. He's saying that once you accept the basic premise of people being randomly assigned to their place in society, it's trivial that people would want a more egalitarian society. the hard part is getting them accept the premise.

I don't fully agree, as I think there plenty of people that don't really think that much about how chance has factored into life.

So you are saying that as soon as people see 'random placement in society' they will disregard everything else without looking at it or considering context due to idealogical reasons?

 skyth wrote:
So you are saying that as soon as people see 'random placement in society' they will disregard everything else without looking at it or considering context due to idealogical reasons?

I think if a person cannot or will not accept that much a person's place in society is due to random chance at birth, they won't see the thought experiment as worth any time. It's a fantasy, not a metaphor.

the argument the other way is that a person that accepts that much of our station in life is due to luck is, unless a sociopath, going to support a more egalitarian society.

Meaning, the crux of the idea isn't what goes on beyond the veil of ignorance, but rather in agreeing with the premise.

I don't entirely agree. I think that even people that accept the premise of random birth will answer the question of how to construct a society differently. It also depends on how the exact random nature is determined. For example, are we keeping our own genes and personality? Or are those randomly assigned as well? Highly driven, intelligent people will push more for a meritocracy with a sharper hierarchy. If there's a chance I could end up, not just poor and a minority, but also of below average intelligence, I might see more value in a floor for wages for menial work.

LordofHats wrote:

 treslibras wrote:
I think you are missing the point.

I think you're missing the critique. He isn't misunderstanding the theory (subsequent explanations have done well to make it clear). Sebster is saying that the thought experiment is of limited usefulness because it is either preaching to the choir, or easily dismissed by attacking its underlying assumptions. I.E. The experiment is a pit of circular logic. The choir agrees with it because it supports the assumptions they already have, and the non-choir dismisses it because its assumptions are different from their assumptions.

This seems accurate with what I've read in thread. I also would point out there seems to be no practicality to this theory outside the thought experiment. It's an interesting experiment for picking apart how people make decisions, but I fail to see how this could ever form a coherent system to improve social equity.

Yes, well, no. I think neither of you has actually understood Rawls, I am afraid.
Let me try to elaborate:

sebster wrote:What I find problematic about Rawls thought experiment* is that there is an underlying assumption that there is no merit in who ends up in what position. That merit plays no part in determining who ends up the street sweeper and who is the CEO. Now, personally I think luck and circumstances of birth play a bigger role than most people realise, but I don't think you can just hide that kind of thing away in your assumptions.

This is actually wrong. There is no such assumption. Nor is that in any way a focus of Rawls thoughts, and it shows that you confuse making a thought experiment (I am a unicorn!) with believing something (I am really a unicorn!)

sebster wrote:

You've missed my point - I'm not talking about luck/merit elements in a Rawlsian society, I'm talking about the thought experiment. The question is asked how a person might design a society if their own place in that society was decided by luck - they would likely look to make it more equitable. That is then used to make a comment about our own society and its inequality.

The problem, though, is that the comment only makes sense if we assume that one's place in our society is determined largely by luck. If a person believes that we are living in something close to a meritocracy then the whole thing falls down.

Again, you are missing the point. Because you have not understood what the actual comment is, and you confuse making a thought-experiment with believing something.

What you basically said is this: If I do not make that thought experiment, it does not work!



The actual comment of Rawls, in essence, is this: People in real life cannot make a moral decision (in the meaning of "making a decision of what is best for everyone") because they are all subject to egotistical, selfish interests that are a product of their particular position and status in society. That might include thoughts on "what shapes socio-economic success" (luck/merit/headstart by inherited status) - or not.
So when someone says "this is the best for society" it is influenced by his own status in society, and what the person sees as fair, good, normal or just In HER OWN EXPERIENCE BEING poor/rich/a libertarian/a racist/dark skinned/homosexual..... and thus a "biased" statement, and not an "objective" moral statement.

- This comment is not at all dependent on people believing that society is formed mainly by luck.

The "being subject to luck" is only a "trick" by which the selfishness of people is neutralized - independent of what their beliefs about the role of luck or personal merits, religion, race or gender policies are in real life. Hence why it is called a "thought experiment".
It is not a premise, nor an aim, nor the focus of the tought experiment.

From wikipedia: "The idea is that parties subject to the veil of ignorance will make choices based upon moral considerations, since they will not be able to make choices based on self- or class-interest."

There are criticism to be levelled against Rawls theory of justice but the tought experiment is totally sound. Again, you should probably read the wiki article, for starters. There are easier examples mentioned that might make it clearer.

 Polonius wrote:
. If there's a chance I could end up, not just poor and a minority, but also of below average intelligence, I might see more value in a floor for wages for menial work.

I believe everything is randomized. Abilities, status, etc.

 LordofHats wrote:

 treslibras wrote:
I think you are missing the point.

I think you're missing the critique. He isn't misunderstanding the theory (subsequent explanations have done well to make it clear). Sebster is saying that the thought experiment is of limited usefulness because it is either preaching to the choir, or easily dismissed by attacking its underlying assumptions. I.E. The experiment is a pit of circular logic. The choir agrees with it because it supports the assumptions they already have, and the non-choir dismisses it because its assumptions are different from their assumptions.

This seems accurate with what I've read in thread. I also would point out there seems to be no practicality to this theory outside the thought experiment. It's an interesting experiment for picking apart how people make decisions, but I fail to see how this could ever form a coherent system to improve social equity.

Actually he is missing the point; the point of asking people to think about this imagined society in the context of their individual position being determined by luck is not an argument that everyone's position is determined entirely or even primarily by luck, it's a mechanic to de-individualise the thought process and force the thinker to consider society in an abstract rather than personal sense, to reduce the impact of their own self-interest which obviously distorts our perception of fairness.

Think of it this way - the thought experiment is designed to put people in a mindset whereby the underlying principle of "do unto others..." can be fully appreciated and followed to its conclusion with regards to socioeconomics, without running into the selfishness, ego, or ideology; it's a way to get people to put themselves in another abstract person's shoes without allowing them to weasel around the idea with "well, I'M awesome so obvie I'd just rise to the top again" sentiment.

And lets be honest, luck plays a far larger role in success than most are willing to admit. The difference between a doing-OK lower-middle-class IT professional and a tech-startup billionaire can be as small and random as one of them getting to a job interview on time and the other's bus running late; on time guy ends up meeting someone through a social function of that job that has the network necessary to realise their ideas, while late bus bloke codes for a modest wage because most people don't have the financial security to gamble everything for that one big break. Similarly the difference between decentt-job-man and stuck-on-benefits-guy could be a bout of illness at just the wrong time or an unexpected bill that pushes them over the edge. When you also factor in the random chance factor for uncontrollable stuff like mental illness, genetic disorders, gender, skin tone etc which can all affect your potential success, the Rawlsian argument is pretty bloody compelling IMO.

To be frank if we are talking about tech startup billionaires it appears to be entirely about luck.

FaceBook was similar to Friendster, Friends Reunited and MySpace, but it won, somehow, and Zuckerman is now richest person on Earth. To be fair, the inventors of Friends Resunited managed to sell it to ITV for £120 million.

The bloke who invented Viber, which is rather similar to Line, WhatsApp, Skype and Snapchat, pulled down £140 million for his inspirational originality.

I had the idea about ordering takeaway food that wasn't Dominoes Pizza about 20 years ago, but I never invented JustEat or HungryHouse, so I am a miserable pauper.

 Polonius wrote:
I don't know. I think plenty of people think that they accomplished what they accomplished by merit alone, and perhaps their friends and family also achieved through merit alone. That doesn't mean they presume that all achievement is due to merit. There's a part of every tycoon that resents old money, after all.

That's a fair point, "I got here through work, you got lucky" is probably a very common strain of thought. That said, I don't think it really impacts my point in this thread, because as long as people believe their own place was decided through most or entirely merit, then the Rawlsian thought experiment will be talking past them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 treslibras wrote:
This is actually wrong. There is no such assumption. Nor is that in any way a focus of Rawls thoughts, and it shows that you confuse making a thought experiment (I am a unicorn!) with believing something (I am really a unicorn!)

No, I haven't confused the two, and your claim that I have is weird and kind of rude.

I'll repeat myself again, noting this is a point I've made a few times now, and one that Polonius has also made rather well on my behalf. I am not for one second talking about the conclusions of the thought experiment. My point is that the thought experiment for which is most famous is of limited value, because it only really works for people already inclined to his conclusions. To anyone else, a person who might believe in little influence of luck, or who might have little interest in subjectivity of morals, Rawls is talking past them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Actually he is missing the point; the point of asking people to think about this imagined society in the context of their individual position being determined by luck is not an argument that everyone's position is determined entirely or even primarily by luck, it's a mechanic to de-individualise the thought process and force the thinker to consider society in an abstract rather than personal sense, to reduce the impact of their own self-interest which obviously distorts our perception of fairness.

Luck is one element, it was probably a mistake on part to focus on that element alone. It is the element I had seen people rejecting when I saw a guy try to sell everyone on it one time, so that's the bit that stuck in my head. It's also the element I focused on because it's the one I had some sympathy with, compared to the individualistic stuff.

But if you include all the rest the criticism still remains - the thought experiment only works on people who've already bought in to Rawls ideas. For them it's unecessary. For everyone else the experiment just talks past them.

And lets be honest, luck plays a far larger role in success than most are willing to admit.

I agree. But here's the thing - oh look, it's another person who buys in to Rawls basic ideas who thinks his model is really insightful

Sorry, sebster, but at this point we can no longer discuss. Yodhrin understands Rawls, you do not.

What you are arguing is something else from what Rawls was, and I am sorry that my explanations (or that of Yodhrin) were apparently not good enough to make you see the difference. Again, I would suggest that you read a bit more about the whole thing to better understand his concepts.

I think the question of "what shapes personal success in society?" is equally interesting but worth its own thread. Rawls only has limited impact on that question (in so far as his theory of justice is about utopia). And if you still want to discuss with me, I will happily chime in on that topic.

 treslibras wrote:
Sorry, sebster, but at this point we can no longer discuss. Yodhrin understands Rawls, you do not.

I think that'd be best. To be perfectly honest my knowledge of Rawls is fairly small, as I said in my first post. Nor is my interest all that great, to be honest, I've got little time for political philosophy at the best of times, and Rawls has never floated my boat.

As such, I never wanted to and never tried to engage in the greater discussion of Rawls. I merely made a single observation about one of the more famous parts of Rawls work, as understood through having seen one guy enthusiastically trying to sell it at a Christmas in July one time. My observation was that the people already inclined to the conclusion bought in to every step along the way, while those that were inclined to dislike the conclusion were rejecting the experiment before it had even begun (when they didn't even know what the conclusion ought to be). As such it appeared to be a great means of confirming or crystalising the thoughts of people who werealready partial those views, but not much for anyone else. It was an idea I saw confirmed in the OP "I've always been a fan of Rawlsian ethics even before I could put a name to them."

That's all my comment was. In turn I got a bunch of responses, none of which really had anything to do with what I'd written. Sure, Rawls might be more interested in overall rules than individual positions in a society, but that isn't a dismissal of what I said. To dismiss my comment or otherwise comment on one would have to make some claim that Rawls is persuasive, or at least no less persuasive than anyone else, or that persuasion isn't important.

I didn't get those responses. That's not that much of a big deal, this is the internet afterall and hoping for responses that directly address your posts is just begging for disappointment. The bigger issue, though, is that the responses I got were fundamentally not interesting. I don't mean that in a personal sense, but in the sense that they didn't spur any greater conversation. As such we can call my contribution to this thread not a useful one, for whatever reason. And that's always the best reason to leave a thread.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 treslibras wrote:
I think you are missing the point.

I think you're missing the critique. He isn't misunderstanding the theory (subsequent explanations have done well to make it clear). Sebster is saying that the thought experiment is of limited usefulness because it is either preaching to the choir, or easily dismissed by attacking its underlying assumptions. I.E. The experiment is a pit of circular logic. The choir agrees with it because it supports the assumptions they already have, and the non-choir dismisses it because its assumptions are different from their assumptions.

This seems accurate with what I've read in thread. I also would point out there seems to be no practicality to this theory outside the thought experiment. It's an interesting experiment for picking apart how people make decisions, but I fail to see how this could ever form a coherent system to improve social equity.

Actually he is missing the point; the point of asking people to think about this imagined society in the context of their individual position being determined by luck is not an argument that everyone's position is determined entirely or even primarily by luck, it's a mechanic to de-individualise the thought process and force the thinker to consider society in an abstract rather than personal sense, to reduce the impact of their own self-interest which obviously distorts our perception of fairness.

Think of it this way - the thought experiment is designed to put people in a mindset whereby the underlying principle of "do unto others..." can be fully appreciated and followed to its conclusion with regards to socioeconomics, without running into the selfishness, ego, or ideology; it's a way to get people to put themselves in another abstract person's shoes without allowing them to weasel around the idea with "well, I'M awesome so obvie I'd just rise to the top again" sentiment.

And lets be honest, luck plays a far larger role in success than most are willing to admit. The difference between a doing-OK lower-middle-class IT professional and a tech-startup billionaire can be as small and random as one of them getting to a job interview on time and the other's bus running late; on time guy ends up meeting someone through a social function of that job that has the network necessary to realise their ideas, while late bus bloke codes for a modest wage because most people don't have the financial security to gamble everything for that one big break. Similarly the difference between decentt-job-man and stuck-on-benefits-guy could be a bout of illness at just the wrong time or an unexpected bill that pushes them over the edge. When you also factor in the random chance factor for uncontrollable stuff like mental illness, genetic disorders, gender, skin tone etc which can all affect your potential success, the Rawlsian argument is pretty bloody compelling IMO.

How is that a thought experiment? Isn't it already the reality in which we live? Nobody gets to choose the parents they are born to or the physical and mental abilities or afflictions they possess. We don't all begin at the same starting point in terms of social strata, ability or opportunity. That's the impetus to enshrine some measure of meritocracy into society, to help people who wish to achieve more be able to do it via their choices and actions while also making sure that those that already have a lot face the danger that their choices and actions could cause them to lose some or all of it. In order to have any degree of fairnessin societal positions you need mobility, people who start from meager beginnings must have opportunities to rise up and people who start with largesse must be able to fail. It's not possible to fully equalize starting positions because you can't control the outcomes of peoples' decisions and actions so some will achieve more than others so their offspring will benefit from that achievement. What society should do is create systems that ensure equality of opportunity for those that who would otherwise have their opportunities restricted by the situation they are born into. Avoid penalizing the child for the sins of the father and all that. What such a system would look like is obviously a matter of conjecture and there's a host of different ideas on how such a system could be constructed and what type of system individuals propose would be subject to the biases of the individual. The idea that people should approach the theoretical construction of a better society with as objective and altruistic of a perspective as possible is a good one but even the concept of objectivity can be a source of disagreement of opinions so I'm not sure how you get people to not only think in a truly objective manner but to first agree on what a truly objective perspective looks like.