I am in a law school now. The teacher taught us the thought experiment of "veil of ignorance" / "original position" in a Tort Law lecture.
This was my first time hearing such idea.
My answer to the thought experiment is that I choose not to gamble.
Assume I know nothing about the future, my social status, ability, rich or poor, etc. Apply principle of sufficient reason, there is ZERO expected value to be born to the world.
I won't bet on a 0 expected value venture. (By a risk-averse argument)
Under the thought experiment (correct me if I am wrong), I think there is no expressed rule that I can choose not to be born.
Therefore, I find out I will only make a rule of the society:
Everyone must be sentenced to death immediately.
(By some kind of machine if there is no human left in the world)
Under this rule, I can choose not to gamble.
I am also sure nobody else in the world can gamble. One may win in the game. He will have more power/money/ability than me and then I may envy.
I don't think I am the only one in the field of philosophy who has such answer. Are there any school of thought share the same (or similar) answer to veil of ignorance?