Wikileaks to release Swiss Banking Records on 2000 wealthy

[Captain Murphy]

[Mr. Perfect]

[Colonel Sun]

[Mr. Perfect]

Eh, the premise of Rawl's principle does not take into account the "viability" of the societal vision. So for me I'll wait to hear what people have to say about my proposal in terms of the standards Rawl puts forward before I get to your material.

[Captain Murphy]

[Captain Murphy]

[Mr. Perfect]

[Mr. Perfect]

[Tinker]

[Mr. Perfect]

[Mr. Perfect]

Tinker it looks like ~ and Rawls have significantly hijacked this thread, perhaps you could split it off as it's own entity, there seems to be enough interest in it.

[Tinker]

[Captain Murphy]

[Caskhades]

[Colonel Sun]

Re: Rawls.

The problem I have with theories of how human society should be organized is that while the theory may sound appealing



Context and application are everything



_____

It's not too hard to imagine how Rawls maxim could be misapplied by the usual suspects: self-appointed altruists.

The only principle, in my view, that transcends this problem is the negative prohibitive version of the Golden Rule: "Don't do unto others, . . . "

And it is not foolproof.

[Captain Murphy]

[Captain Murphy]

[Tinker]

First off, did Rawls ever try to implement policy this way? As a thought experiment to get a person to think about ethics, it's not a terrible thing. It seems to me like people here are making a category error regarding a thought experiment. Calling it stupid harvard nonsense or whatever. People have these kinds of hypothetical counterfactuals in philosophy classes everywhere, not just at Harvard. You might have a philosophy professor at Podunk Community College making up counterfactuals like it.

[Caskhades]

[Tinker]

[~]

[Caskhades]

Tinker and Tilde,

I use the economics defintion of what a risk-loving (as opposed to the more prevalent risk averse type) is. If you don't know what the term means, look it up. You have fingers. Keep in mind that even the most risk averse will take a gamble if the odds/gain ratio is good enough.

Suppose a demon came to the people, and said: I will make all of you ten times richer. In return, I will murder one in ten thousand of you every year. Do you think the society would adopt the demon's plan or not?

(Hint: look up US highway deaths as a fraction of the US population)

[Tinker]

[~]

[Caskhades]

I'll stop the thread hijack here. Veil of ignorance debates, redux:

"Put yourself in these people's place. You wouldn't like it, would you?"
"Well, probably not, but I am not in their place."
"But if you were..."
"I'm not! People have natures, talents and faults. We can't ignore that."
"For Chrissake, show some empathy man!"
"Keep your grubby hands out of my pocket, you commie!"