Timeline for Are there any school of thought share the same answer with me to veil of ignorance?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 28, 2016 at 4:37 | comment | added | Kraang Prime | After reading the paper, it seems that the veil of ignorance is a moraility test implying that under a new society with no law, some basic law regarding personal safety/property/etc would be something conceived of in every system -- a morality test. I am not sure I would agree with that blanket view, however it does seem to be the case with modern civilization and current law. While your scenario does certainly portray one possible outcome, I think it probably stretches outside the boundaries of the test and could put your own morals up for question by your prof. | |
| Mar 26, 2016 at 14:04 | comment | added | wh0 | I think it is a thought experiment on thinking what law is just. The detail on how to implement is not really important? I think my answer can be seen as a "solution" of the thought experiment. Surprisingly (I came up with it during lecture immediately), my solution gives me an idea that justice (under this thought experiment) implies meaningless of life. | |
| Mar 26, 2016 at 5:49 | comment | added | virmaior | @SanuelJackson I don't really follow how your comments relate the question. The question is about the "veil of ignorance", a notion invented by Rawls ... | |
| Mar 26, 2016 at 4:03 | comment | added | Kraang Prime | Looking deeper, you must also ask the question of how one could be born when no humans are left to bear, and under the machine operated world, why they would continue to create if the outcome was certain death. | |
| Mar 26, 2016 at 4:02 | comment | added | Kraang Prime | I understand the notion you are portraying regarding the only rule in question being the ability to choose to exist (to be born) or not which would be the only viable alternative in this reality as being born is an automatic death sentence. Of the infinite number of things humanity has zero knowledge on, among them are, 'are we conscious before birth' and 'are we conscious after death'. If the answer to those questions is yes, then there is a reasonable choice that can be made, and thus proof can be shown of intent, justifying either outcome. | |
| Mar 26, 2016 at 3:14 | comment | added | virmaior | As such, I'm not sure whether to answer by explaining the problem with what you're suggesting vis-a-vis Rawls or to vote to close as unclear. | |
| Mar 26, 2016 at 3:14 | comment | added | virmaior | This question seems to be predicated on a misunderstanding of when/how the veil of ignorance is supposed to work in Rawl's philosophy. | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 17:24 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 10, 2016 at 3:04 | |||||
| Mar 25, 2016 at 13:41 | answer | added | Chris Sunami | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 13:11 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 25, 2016 at 17:05 | |||||
| Mar 25, 2016 at 13:07 | history | asked | wh0 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |