Hacker News Reader

Comment by ReaLNero | Hacker News Reader

Important fyi is that in Rawls's conception of justice, you do not have knowledge of the likelihood of characteristics like handicap, immigrants etc. Otherwise an enslaved minority would be worthwhile enough to make a just society, which is clearly incorrect.

View on HN

I know and that's captured in what I said. You have no idea what could happen to you. This actual fact replaces (or supplements) the need for the Veil of Ignorance. Maximizing the minimum actually reduces the worst case scenario you could end up in and there's nothing hypothetical about that.

You are assuming that everyone shares your risk aversion, which is rather similar to one of Rawls' logical errors.

You are assuming that behind the veil of ignorance, you are still you, with your memories, risk tolerance, education, etc.

That is false. You are a random person, with all of those characteristics decided by the proverbial roll of the dice.

I can't help you if you're not averse to being enslaved and tortured.

I think enslavement and torture aversion are widespread, but some people are likely more tolerant of enslavement and torture risk. The fact that people volunteer for military service and combat duties is some evidence of this.

Okay, I see your point. We should probably be aware that such risk tolerances can change though.

All preferences change over time; this is one of many problems with Rawls' logic.

> All preferences change over time; this is one of many problems with Rawls' logic.

No, not even close. Aversion to torture and torture doesn't. Need for air, water, food, hygiene, clothes, shelter, etc. doesn't.

People's risk aversion changes throughout their lives. Young people, in general, tend to be much less risk averse than older people. This makes sense, since young people have not accumulated as much property and so have a lot less to lose.

That's what I said. Risk aversion can (and often does) change. Some preferences don't (and can't) though.

There is a simple way around that argument; instead of getting some random (according to whatever distribution) characteristics, be bound to have higher probability of obtaining those characteristics you would be the least bound to be fair to (as individuals). So, if one considers that slavery or torture is perfectly OK, then that person will become a slave or tortured.

Well maximin is exactly what Rawls proposes, so it's the same logical error (if you can even call it that).

Some people feel in control of their life, have a support system, etc. and believe that such things could never happen to them.

Right, many of those people are much less likely to be at the receiving end of enslavement and torture and go on the make generalization errors from that position.

are you sure it's a generalization error? you forget that people experiencing enslavement and torture also have some amount of agency, and historically, have periodically organized to inflict terror upon people who seem to be immune to or supported by the pains of the momentary status quo.

it seems silly to believe that outcome to be impossible and erroneous to consider, when there are people out there actively working towards that objective.

Sorry, just really not convinced by this rebuttal. I don't think the enslavers and torturers today are concerned with Spartacus-type events and that makes them not assume their experiences are generalizable.

> You have no idea what could happen to you. This actual fact...

Sometimes beliefs are more important than facts though. People in general may not have the depth of understanding you do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com