How to Make Fair Laws: John Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- In his influential book "A Theory of Justice," Political philosopher John Rawls argues that justice is fairness. And in order to have justice and fairness, we must choose laws from behind a veil of ignorance. This means we must imagine that we didn't know anything about our own identity (wealth, race, gender, religion, etc.) and consider which laws we would choose given that we didn't know how they would affect us individually.
Media Sources:
Illustrations: www.freepik.com
Photos: www.pexels.com
Photos & Video Clips: www.pexels.com
Music: www.purple-pla...
Sound Effects: www.zapsplat.com
Which laws would you accept or reject from behind the veil of ignorance? Why?
love how this is so concise and made me understand the theory in 2 minutes! thanks for the video.
I have had a difficult time understanding this concept and this video helped a lot! Thank you!
Great! I’m glad it helped!
The cookie is such a good example! Thanks!!
Damn... Nice video. I just made one about Socrates, but... well... it's humbling to watch something that is so well put together.
I just checked it out. Good work! Keep spreading the word about philosophy!
Hey,these is cool man👍. Good job.. Thank you 🤝
I love this video! Soooo good. It brings up a question. Is Rawls assuming that everyone always chooses for their own best interest? If so, it wouldn’t make sense in cases like Mother Teresa who gave up her life for the sake of others, whereas others in her same situation went on with their lives. Would there be some kids that for the joy of their sibling, would give up some of their cookie? It seems like some people have internal morals that direct their choices. I’m just wondering if it is universally true.
Great question! Rawls doesn't assume that everyone is always self-interested. People can be altruistic and unselfish. However, we all typically have a difficult time seeing our own biases. We don't recognize unfairness as well when it's happening to someone else. So in asking ourselves hypothetically, "If I were totally self-interested and didn't want to be treated unfairly, which policies would I agree to?" we might be better at recognizing whether a policy is unfair. Going back to the cookie example, we might voluntarily give up our portion of the cookie after the fact, but we would still want to start with a fair share and voluntarily decide to give it up rather than start off with an unfair share against our will.
Strong video. Nice one dude looks like this is shaping up to be a good new channel
I cut; you choose predates John Rawls. As Anatole France wrote: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. Laws are written by legislators that are not affected by those laws and do not know the consequences of those laws. That is the actual Veil of Ignorance.
What a Phenomenal analogy Rawls uses.
John forcey here. Awesome videos.
Dr. Forcey! Thank you so much. I hope all is well with you and yours.
this is pure gold!! thanks a lot for the concise video!
Thanku for that example😊😊
THANK YOU SO MUCH
High-Stakes Gambler: “Concentrate all resources and power in as few hands as possible!”
Love it.
King 👑👑
Did he include the time you would be born in?
We wouldn't need to know the exact time period, but we would still need to know basic facts about the society we are joining. Rawls is actually offering a version of Social Contract Theory. He's asking which laws we would rationally agree to from behind the veil. And being behind the veil means we do not know anything about our self or about other individuals. However, we need some knowledge about society in order to understand what we're agreeing to. So behind behind the veil does NOT mean being ignorant of all facts. We would still know basic facts about human psychology, economics, science, etc.
@@ThinkingAboutStuff I was not clear in my 10 word comment. It seems to me that it's _possible_ that less people live in absolute misery, seen over the span of millions of years, when there's high wealth inequality in geographical location than when there would be a distribution of wealth that's as equal as we can get it. For example because it could be that the (re)distribution of wealth is very hard and expensive and thus throws a wrench in our collective progress, which makes more people suffer in the future. And well, for the same reason people choose their own 'rank' in society to be the beneficiary of their rules, so would they choose their own time to be the pay-off time of their strategy. So I would be led to believe that it's necessary also not to know the time you would live in.
Do you agree? And do you by any chance know if Rawls mentioned time in a comparable context?
Sorry for my delayed reply. My notifications aren't working properly.
You make a great point. I don't know whether Rawls considered the time you would live in. But I think there might be a way around that. Technically, Rawls' point isn't about which *specific laws* you would agree to from behind the veil. He is more focused on which abstract principles of justice you would agree to. And after we agree to the principles of justice, we can then ask of specific laws whether they are compatible with those principles. (This is sort of analogous to how the US constitution and specific laws interact. The constitution would be the "principles of justice" and the specific laws would need to be compatible with those.)
So theoretically, the principles of justice that we would agree to should could be timeless, but the specific laws might need to change over time. One example might be something like the following. Suppose we agree to the abstract principle of justice that "Everyone should have equal access/opportunity to earn wealth." What does this mean for specific laws? Well, in a time where systemic racism is a problem, this might mean we need certain affirmative action laws to even the playing field of opportunity. But in a time where systemic racism isn't a problem (wouldn't that be nice!) such laws might not be just.
@@ThinkingAboutStuff thanks for the reply! I think that the example of "everyone should have equal access to X" is exactly something that wouldn't make sense if you include time into your thinking. And maybe you could remedy it by saying "as everyone else that was born in the same year" but well, this still leaves the door open for laws that favour people that live currently, which is just a random portion of all people that'll live. For things like climate control it would be needed to include time into your thinking. I hope this makes sense. I'm writing from my phone
That was good
Thank you.
Okay so… since we aren’t able to forget our identities, laws are all unjust..?
Based
great video
You left out something important. John Rawls believed that when behind the veil of ignorance, we would choose laws and policies that maximize the well being of the least advantaged. depending on how you define "fair treatment" that can mean the same thing as no one being treated unfairly. But it can also mean something different. Some people believe that everyone getting out of the system what they put into the system is more fair than making the least well off person as well off as possible.
You're right! Setting up the veil of ignorance is only Rawls' first step. I might make a second video explaining the second step, but it gets a bit more complicated, so I have to think about how to best explain it in a video.
Rawls' second step is to then argue for specific principles that rational people would agree to from behind the veil. Rawls argues that we would choose two principles (or three, depending on how you slice it). One of those principles--the most controversial one--is "the difference principle" which you're referring to. It says, "Social and economic inequalities are to... to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society." Basically that the least off in society are as well off as possible. And one complaint about this is that it doesn't say anything about one's work or effort.
♥️
It's because when you yourself are behind the veil of ignorance, you don't know your position, skills, abilities and status in society, but you have the knowledge of some key economic principles and psychology.
Under such conditions, you become a rational negotiator choosing the least dangerous path, because it's a state of uncertainty.
When you don't have an idea regarding your position in such an arrangement, you are bound to choose the greatest benefit to the least advantaged in the society, cuz you actually don't know where you will be in such a state of uncertainty.
That's the principle of justice according to John Rawls, he takes into account the real nature of human behaviour and his appetite or desire for being envious, hateful and guided by self-interest. The reason why such rational negotiators will dispense justice taking into consideration their own position if they were to fall in a disadvantaged section of society.
@@ThinkingAboutStuff
Rational negotiators are actually greedy, envious, guided by self-interest and egoist, but since they are behind a "veil of ignorance", they are to take a least dangerous path in a state of uncertainty offered by such an arrangement.
They wouldn't just give the greatest benefits to the most advantaged members, cuz what if they found themselves under the category of least advantaged??
This principle works either ways and that's how principles of justice are laid down.
@@ThinkingAboutStuff
In both the scenarios, those who take decisions wouldn't try to assume all the benefits for the advantaged ones, cuz they are being forced or compelled to think from a rational perspective.
People choose unfairness from behind the veil every time they buy a lottery ticket.
my tun lin aung am myanmar states to myanmar nation. welcome next years 2053 time ok.
general aung san familys and be this is myanmar year 1915.
🧚🏻♂️❣️🌌