more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Why would a group of people with strong beliefs (e.g. religious beliefs) agree to debate the problem of what norms should govern their association from behind a veil of ignorance? …They would not accept the veil of ignorance as fair.
Gist of Idea
People with strong prior beliefs would have nothing to do with a veil of ignorance
Source
John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 14)
Book Ref
Charvet,John: 'Liberalism: the basics' [Routledge 2019], p.179
A Reaction
Nice. Rawls's experiment assumes liberal people with very few beliefs. No racial supremacist is going to enter a society in which they may be of a different race. Charvet says the entrants would all need to be pluralists about the good.
Related Idea
Idea 22849 Rawls's theory cannot justify liberalism, since it presupposes free and equal participants [Charvet]
| 20005 | The rich would never submit to a lottery deciding which part of their society should be slaves [Montesquieu] |
| 18636 | Choose justice principles in ignorance of your own social situation [Rawls] |
| 20595 | You can't distribute goods from behind a veil, because their social meaning is unclear [Walzer, by Tuckness/Wolf] |
| 23109 | The veil of ignorance is only needed because people have bad motivations [Kekes] |
| 20987 | The veil of ignorance encourages neutral interests, but not a wider view of values [Sen] |
| 20568 | The principles Rawls arrives at do not just conform to benevolence, but also result from choices [Oksala] |
| 20593 | The veil of ignorance ensures both fairness and unanimity [Tuckness/Wolf] |
| 22848 | People with strong prior beliefs would have nothing to do with a veil of ignorance [Charvet] |